ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has 66,000 Exposure Claims at June 30ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 77,000 PI Claims as of June 30ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Has 430 PD Claims at June 30ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 54,969 Claims as of June 30ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending PI Cases at June 30

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2012, allegingviolations of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of anationwide class and violations of the California Labor Code onbehalf of a California class.

In early 2013, the parties mediated the dispute before attorneyMark Rudy.

Though they failed to reach a settlement at mediation, Rudysubsequently presented a settlement proposal, which both sidesaccepted in March.

Terms call for Agilysis to pay a gross settlement amount of about$1.5 million, which would include attorneys' fees of no more than$375,000, about $25,000 in litigation costs, class-representativepayments of up to $5,000 for each named plaintiff, $16,500 inadministration expenses to Rust Consulting Inc., and a $25,000Private Attorney General Act payment to the Labor and WorkforceDevelopment Agency.

An estimated 131 total current and former employees may qualifyfor the lawsuit. Of that number, 117 individuals are and wereemployed outside of California, and 14 are and were employed inthe Golden State.

"In the instant case, plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated thatthe potential collective action members were subject to the samepolicy that resulted in Agilysis' failure to pay them wages towhich they were lawfully entitled under the FLSA," the eight-pageruling states, abbreviating Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs have sufficientlyshown that potential collective action members in states outsideof California are 'similarly situated' within the meaning of theFLSA for purposes of conditional certification," Brown added.

"Given the small number of individuals for whom classcertification is being sought, the court finds that plaintiffs'request to certify a California class must be rejected due totheir failure to satisfy the numerosity requirement," the rulingstates.

"In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to carrytheir burden of demonstrating that conditional certification of aCalifornia class is appropriate in this case. Although the courthas determined that conditional certification of the non-California FLSA class is warranted, the court cannot preliminarilyapprove the settlement because it is dependent upon approval ofthe California class as well," Brown wrote.

Agilysys specializes in property management, point-of-sale andworkforce management software. The company has four centraloffices in the United States, plus locations in Hong Kong,Singapore and the United Kingdom.

The Second Circuit concludes, in light of Mims, that federal lawsupplies the appropriate statute of limitations -- here, fouryears, see 28 U.S.C. Section 1658(a) -- rather than Connecticutstate law. This holding, however, does not save Giovanniello'sclaim because the Second Circuit joins every other circuit courtto have addressed the issue and concludes that the tolling ruleannounced in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.538 (1974), extends only through the denial of class status in thefirst instance by the district court. As Mr. Giovannielloacknowledges, cutting off tolling at this point requires aconclusion that his September 8, 2009 filing was untimely.

The Second Circuit, therefore, affirms the district court'sjudgment of dismissal.

This case is the fourth attempt by Mr. Giovanniello to commenceand prosecute a putative class action under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.Section 227(b)(1)(c), for an unsolicited fax advertisement that heallegedly received on January 28, 2004.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion is availableat http://is.gd/PmOwtEfrom Leagle.com.

APPLE PARK: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Violation----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withApple Park LLC, of San Francisco, announced a voluntary recall ofabout 7,250 Children's two-piece loungewear sets. Consumersshould stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It isillegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumerproduct.

The loungewear garments fail to meet children's sleepwear federalflammability standards which require sleepwear, includingloungewear, to be either snug-fitting or flame resistant, posing arisk of burn injuries to children.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Apple Park children's 96% viscose and 4%spandex two-piece sets from the Apple Park Bamboo LoungewearCollection. They were sold in children's sizes 6 months throughsize 4. The sets consist of a long-sleeve shirt paired withmatching full-length pants with elastic waistband. The collar,ankles and wristbands are solid-colored. The sets come in fiveanimal character prints: pink "bunny," blue "cubby," white/green"ducky," violet "lamby" and green "monkey." "GPU CO815" isprinted on sewn labels at the pants waistline and along theshirt's bottom right side seam.

This is a prisoner civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.Plaintiffs William Sim Spencer and Desiderio Sanchez are Michiganprisoners confined at the Cooper Street Correctional Facility inJackson, Michigan. The plaintiffs seek to file a joint civilrights complaint.

The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to theplaintiffs filing individual complaints.

Judge Cox rules, among other things, that the complaint isdeficient because Plaintiff Spencer did not file an application toproceed in forma pauperis or the required supportingdocumentation.

"An additional problem with the complaint is that it appears thatthe plaintiffs seek to file a class action suit in this case,"Judge Cox said. "The Court will deny any such request by theplaintiffs to file a class action because none of these plaintiffscan adequately protect the interests of the class."

A copy of the District Court's August 8, 2013 Opinion and Order isavailable at http://is.gd/TNUSKBfrom Leagle.com.

Consumer Watchdog said the lawsuit is critical to ensure consumersget the health care they paid for, especially as the deadlinelooms for Californians to purchase health insurance or face taxfines.

"In the world according to Blue Cross, consumers are required tobuy its policies, but once enrolled, Blue Cross can change theprice and take away the benefits and coverage it promised," saidConsumer Watchdog staff attorney Jerry Flanagan. "When consumerspurchase health plans, they carefully consider the price they'llpay and the services they'll receive. If Blue Cross is allowed toboost profits by reducing benefits each month, then consumers'health plans are worthless."

The class action lawsuit contends that Blue Cross engaged invarious unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the CLRA by:

* Increasing "annual deductibles" and other "annual" and"yearly" out of pocket costs, thereby reducing the benefitsavailable under the health plan contracts, in the middle of theyear. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members must pay morethan promised for covered medical treatments.

* Adopting a new contract provision purportedly allowing BlueCross to change "any term or benefit" of its heath service planseach month.

* Converting individual health service plan contracts fromannual to month-to-month in duration. Thus, the health serviceplans now terminate at the end of each month and "renew" uponpayment of the next month's premium. As a result, consumers aremore likely to be terminated due to payments delayed by mail orprocessing errors by Blue Cross.

The class action lawsuit also challenges violations of statehealth laws and claims for breach of health plan contracts.

"Years ago I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I have paid bigpremiums and rarely went to the doctor. Now, Blue Cross isdramatically increasing my premiums and reducing my coverage inthe middle of the year. That's not fair. If I told Blue Crossthat I decided to pay them a smaller premium in exchange for thereduction in coverage, Blue Cross would drop me!" saidJanet Kassouf of Hayward, one of the lead plaintiffs in thelawsuit.

Blue Cross has claimed that the mid-year changes to "annual" and"yearly" out of pocket costs were necessary to protect consumersfrom premium increases, yet Blue Cross:

* Simultaneously increased premiums by up to 20% in 2011;

* At the time of the changes had five times the requiredamount of cash reserves (tangible net equity ["TNE"]) -- $1.2billion in excess of state-mandated TNE -- while the company paid$950 million in dividends to its shareholders since 2011.

The class action covers over 1,500 current and former InvestmentAdvisors, Associate Investment Advisors and Investment AdvisorTrainees, employed by Nesbitt Burns since 2002. Justice Belobabafound that all three of the above employee groups were ". . .excluded from overtime under the Nesbitt overtime policy becausethey are paid in whole or in part on commission." The plaintiffalleges that Nesbitt Burns breached their duties to the classmembers by systematically and improperly denying overtime to theclass. The allegations have not yet been proven. Thecertification decision will allow this case to proceed as a classaction.

Yegal Rosen, a former Investment Advisor with Nesbitt Burns, hasbeen appointed as the lead representative plaintiff in the action.Mr. Rosen worked as an Investment Advisor for Nesbitt Burns from2002-2006. During this time, Mr. Rosen never received overtimecompensation, while working between 60-80 hours per week.

This class action follows several other "off the clock" overtimeclass actions by employees in the banking sector. This is thefirst "misclassification" case in this area to be certified as aclass action.

Current or former Investment Advisors and Associate InvestmentAdvisors who believe they may be class members should contactclass counsel.

CITIGROUP INC: Judge Approves $730MM Settlement With Bondholders----------------------------------------------------------------Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports thatCitigroup Inc. and its lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &Garrison have secured final court approval for a $730 millionsettlement with bondholders who claimed the bank misled them aboutits condition during the financial crisis. The ruling doesn'taddress the lingering question of whether plaintiffs counsel atBernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann will get the $146 millionthey've requested in attorneys fees.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein signed off on the settlement in a13-page decision issued on Aug. 20. The development comes just afew weeks after Stein approved a $590 million deal Citi inked withshareholders over parallel claims.

The judge called the settlement fair and reasonable, even as henoted that Bernstein Litowitz's own expert witness had peggeddamages at roughly $3 billion. Plaintiffs counsel would havefaced several obstacles at trial, Judge Stein wrote, likeestablishing liability under Fait v. Regions Financial Corp., a2011 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuitthat made it extremely difficult to build a securities classaction based on a bank's statements about its goodwill and loanloss reserves.

As The Litigation Daily noted when the settlement was firstannounced in March, Bernstein Litowitz's total recovery inpost-financial crisis investor class actions is now hovering abovethe $5 billion mark.

Stein has not yet ruled on the firm's $146 million attorneys feerequest, which it filed in June. The firm plans to give part ofthe money to co-counsel at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check andPomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross. By way ofcomparison, Bernstein Litowitz and its co-counsel asked for $150million when they negotiated a historic $2.4 billion class actionsettlement with Bank of America Corp. last September.

Class action crusader Theodore Frank criticized Bernstein Litowitzin a blog post for demanding 20 percent of the recovery in theCiti case, but a scan of the court docket doesn't reveal much inthe way of formal objections. Mr. Frank's Center for Class ActionFairness recently succeeded in slicing a $100 million attorneysfee request lodged by Kirby McInerney for negotiating the $590million Citi shareholder deal.

"We and our clients are extremely pleased that the Court approvedthe settlement, which we believe is an outstanding result forinvestors," Bernstein Litowitz partner John Browne --johnb@blbglaw.com -- said in a statement.

ECOTALITY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.--------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 20disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit againstEcotality, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action,filed in United States District Court, Northern District ofCalifornia, and docketed under 13-cv-03840, is on behalf of aclass consisting of all persons or entities who purchased orotherwise acquired securities of Ecotality between April 16, 2012and August 9, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeksto recover damages against the Company and certain of its officersand directors as a result of alleged violations of the federalsecurities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ecotality securities duringthe Class Period, you have until October 14, 2013 to ask the Courtto appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), tollfree, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to includetheir mailing address, telephone number, and number of sharespurchased.

Ecotality, engages in designing, manufacturing, testing, andcommercializing electric vehicle (EV) charging and energy storagesystems in the United States and internationally. It primaryproducts include the Blink line of charging stations for passengervehicle applications, such as Blink Level 2 residential andcommercial chargers, and the Blink DC Fast Chargers, as well as aturnkey network operating system for EV drivers, commercialbusinesses, and utilities; and the Minit-Charger line of fast-charge systems for off-road industrial applications, includingmaterial handling operations and airport ground service equipment.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendantsmade false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)the Company was facing an impeding shutdown of funds from theUnited States Department of Energy ("DOE"); (2) the Company wasinappropriately recognizing revenue and drawing down expenses onits contract with DOE; (3) the Company's products containedsignificant design and manufacturing defects; (4) the Companylacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and,(5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements werematerially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 12, 2013, the Company disclosed that the DOE hadsuspended all payments to the Company, had ordered the Company tocease incurring new costs under its prior arrangement with DOE,and had ordered it to notify all of Ecotality's vendors of theDOE's action. The Company also disclosed that it was unable tocorrect design and manufacturing defects in its charging systems,likely requiring a recall of all connector plugs on the 12,000charging stations it had installed to date; and that as a result,it had hired a restructuring adviser to evaluate options includingfiling a bankruptcy "in the very near future." On this news,Ecotality securities declined $1.16 per share or over 79%, toclose at $0.35 per share on August 12, 2013.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,Florida, and San Diego.

FORD MOTOR: Class Action Attorneys Balk at Response to Motion-------------------------------------------------------------John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports thatplaintiffs attorneys in three class actions filed against FordMotor Company say the company is attempting to punish them fororganizing a leadership team.

On Aug. 15, the plaintiffs attorneys filed their reply to Ford'sargument that it is too soon to appoint interim co-lead counseland a plaintiffs steering committee. Ford contends each classaction must be before the same court before that can happen.

There are three class actions filed in U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of West Virginia in Huntington and a fourth inSouth Carolina federal court.

"Ford's response to Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of InterimLead Counsel epitomizes the 'fox . . . [in] the chicken house'fears that have led courts throughout the United States toconclude that defendants lack standing to interfere in suchpreliminary leadership designations . . ." the plaintiffsattorneys wrote.

"Ignoring this established jurisprudence, Ford asks this Court topunish Plaintiffs' counsel for avoiding contested leadershipmotion practice and privately -- and prospectively -- orderingproposed leadership in this litigation in a streamlined mannerthat is in the best interests of the proposed class."

Plaintiffs attorneys submitted their motion on July 30. It asksthat five attorneys -- including two from West Virginia -- beappointed interim co-lead counsel.

Those two West Virginians are Timothy Bailey of Bucci, Bailey &Javins and Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of SpilmanThomas & Battle, both of Charleston.

They are joined in their request by Adam J. Levitt --alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago; Stephen M.Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson& Gorny in Leawood, Kan.; and Mark DiCello --madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor,Ohio.

The three lawsuits make the same allegations -- that those whopurchased Ford vehicles manufactured between 2002-10 would nothave paid as much for them or purchased them at all if they weremade aware of the sudden acceleration problems.

The vehicles at issue were manufactured between 2002 and 2010.They were equipped with an electronic throttle control but notadequate fail-safe systems to prevent incidents of suddenunintended acceleration, the complaint says.

"In addition, and most significantly, regardless of the cause ofthese admittedly foreseeable events, the Ford vehicles share acommon design defect in that they lack adequate fail-safe systems,including a reliable Brake Over Accelerator system that wouldallow a driver to mitigate sudden unintended acceleration bydepressing the brake," the complaints say.

"Each person who has owned or leased a Ford vehicle vulnerable tosudden unintended acceleration during the time period relevant tothis action paid more for the Ford vehicle than they would havepaid, or would not have purchased or leased the Ford vehiclealtogether, because of the defective nature of the Ford vehiclesresulting from the absence of a fail-safe such as a BOA to preventsudden unintended acceleration events in each of them."

The complaints say they have also been filed before the tolling ofthe statute of limitations because the plaintiffs could not haveknown their vehicles were vulnerable to sudden unintendedacceleration because Ford concealed this from them.

Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from the same years are included inthe complaints.

Charleston attorney Edgar F. Heiskell III is also asking to be apart of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

"Should the District of South Carolina choose to stay Thomas andthen transfer it to this Court, a motion to appoint Interim LeadCounsel would be appropriate," Ford's response says.

"Until that time, this Court does not have power to compel anyaction in Thomas; choosing 'lead counsel' in this case would onlyconfuse the question of who speaks for the purported class.

"In reality, no one does. Until a class is certified, nothing inthese cases is binding on absent class members."

Ford has also filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strikewhat it calls "objectionable" paragraphs in the complaints.

The paragraphs Ford finds objectionable" allege that in the 1980s,the company intentionally disposed of internal reports regardingsudden acceleration events and that it concealed the informationfrom the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by theNHTSA and a Florida appellate court.

"Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs'claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandumin support says.

"The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous,injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs'present claims. The allegations are clearly designed only toinflame the jury and the public.

"Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionableallegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford byrequiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources inlitigation."

The company recently agreed to pay $17.35 million to settle aninvestigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency.

The NHTSA alleged Ford took too long to recall Escapes that couldhave defects that cause unintended acceleration. Ford recalled423,000 Escapes in 2012.

Ford denied it broke any laws in the settlement agreement.

HALCON ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Remands Class Action to Pennsylvania Court------------------------------------------------------------------Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded a classaction against an oil and gas company to a Pennsylvania court.

A three-judge panel of the court -- judges Marjorie Rendell, DavidBrooks Smith and Patty Shwartz -- affirmed the U.S. District Courtfor the Western District of Pennsylvania's remand order.

In its ruling on Aug. 16, the Third Circuit concluded that theClass Action Fairness Act's "home state" exception is notapplicable to the case, but said remand is warranted under theact's "local controversy" exception.

Defendant Halcon Energy Properties Inc. had appealed the districtcourt's order based on the home state exception.

CAFA provides federal courts with jurisdiction over civil classactions if the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of$5,000,000," the aggregate number of proposed class members is 100or more, and any class member is a citizen of a state differentfrom any defendant.

Plaintiffs Jeffry S. Vodenichar, David M. King Jr. Leigh V. King,Joseph B. Davis, Lauren E. Davis, Grove City Country Club andRichard Broadhead filed suit on behalf of themselves and othersimilarly situated landowners who sought to lease the oil and gasrights in their land in Mercer County, Pa.

Defendants Morascyzk & Polochak and Co-eXprise, d/b/a CX-Energy,agreed to act as the plaintiffs' agents to negotiate leases oftheir oil and gas interests to energy companies under the terms ofLandowner MarketPlace Agreements, or LMAs.

In exchange for their successful marketing efforts, M&P and CX-Energy were to be paid a "transaction fee."

M&P and CX-Energy entered into a Letter of Intent with Halcon, anoil and gas company, pursuant to which Halcon would lease up to60,000 acres of oil and gas rights from landowners who enteredinto LMAs and who had submitted lease documents to Halcon.

Under the Halcon agreement, each landowner who executed an LMA wasguaranteed a $3,850 per acre payment plus an 18.5 percent royaltyon the net amount Halcon realized from the oil and gas recoveredfrom the property.

According to the plaintiffs, Halcon agreed to accept the leasesabsent a title defect, an adverse environmental claim orrestrictions on the ability to explore, drill for or produce oil,gas or hydrocarbons.

In their suit, the plaintiffs assert that Halcon rejected many ofthe leases for reasons other than those permitted under theagreement.

The company counters that the word "geology" was fraudulentlyomitted from the list of grounds upon which it could decline tolease the property, and that it was within its bargained-forrights to reject the leases.

The plaintiffs claim that this explanation was "pretextual," asHalcon sought to extricate itself from the lease arrangementbecause it lost a bid to secure oil and gas rights in other nearbyproperties, which made the leases of the plaintiffs' land lessattractive.

The plaintiffs further claim that they did not know that any wordswere omitted from the agreements and if a change had been made, itwas the fault of M&P and CX-Energy.

Judge Shwartz, who authored the Third Circuit's 17-page ruling,said Halcon, which is not a citizen of Pennsylvania, is a primarydefendant. Thus, the home state exception is inapplicable.

However, the same representative plaintiffs filed two complaintson behalf of an identically-defined putative class arising fromthe same factual allegations.

"The question here is whether the first and second filed actionsare the same case or if the first filed action is an 'other classaction,' as contemplated under the local controversy exception,"Judge Shwartz wrote.

In short, the Third Circuit said Halcon is defending the same caseit had been defending since November 2012, with the exception ofthe addition of the other parties Halcon intended to join.

"The first filed action therefore is not an 'other class action'as contemplated under CAFA, but rather is the same case, albeitenlarged, and thus, the 'no other class action' prong of the localcontroversy exception is satisfied," Judge Shwartz wrote.

"For these reasons, the local controversy exception to CAFAjurisdiction mandates remand of this truly local case involvingPennsylvania landowners and their land."

HALO INNOVATIONS: Recalls SleepSacks Wearable Blankets------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withHalo Innovations, of Minnetonka, Minn., announced a voluntaryrecall of about 27,000 HALO SleepSack Wearable Blankets with PinkSatin Flowers. Consumers should stop using this product unlessotherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt toresell a recalled consumer product.

Petals from the floral embellishment on the blankets can detach,posing a choking hazard to infants.

The firm has received six reports of the petals detaching from theblankets including one report of an infant found gagging on adetached petal.

The recalled HALO SleepSack wearable blankets are 100% whitecotton with pink-edged ruffles and a pink satin rose embellishmenton the front. These sack-shaped wearable blankets have cut-outsfor the baby's arms, a zipper down the center, a sewn bottom andwere sold in small and medium sizes. Only SleepSack products withGPU numbers 2701, 2781, 2886, 2887, 3007, 3035 and 3142 printed ona neck label under the primary neck label are included in therecall.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at Babies R Us and http://www.babiesrus.comfrom December 2011 through July 2013 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the wearable blankets andcontact HALO Innovations for a pre-paid envelope containinginstructions to remove and return the flower and order a freereplacement product.

JACKSON, MI: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee-----------------------------------------------------------Will Forgrave, writing for MLive.com, reports that the lawsuitskeep piling up for the city of Jackson.

Following a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that canceled thecity's controversial stormwater utility fee, Jackson residentPhillip Panzica filed a class action lawsuit against the city lastweek.

Mr. Panzica -- represented by attorney Brian Surgener -- is hopingthat he and others that fall under the class action's umbrella getreimbursed their stormwater fees.

Mr. Surgener said anyone in the city who paid the stormwater feefalls under the class action suit, including 2,500 commercialproperties. There are nearly 15,000 parcels that were billed,according to the suit.

Jackson officials also were sued by former interim director of theJackson Housing Commission Kimberly Truman Aug. 12 and anotherstormwater suit is on the horizon, according to Mr. Surgener.

Ms. Truman sued the city for wrongful termination and Jacksonresident Michael Wisniewski plans to file suit against the cityfor the nearly $3,000 he paid in stormwater fees.

Mr. Surgener, who sued the city in December 2011 after receivinghis stormwater bill at his business Jackson Coffee Co., filed theclass action suit in Jackson County Circuit Court on Thursday,Aug. 15.

"(City officials) have 21 days to respond," he said. "The problemI have with the city waiting to tell residents whether or not theywill see a refund is that they're saving money every day they waitto do it."

There is a one-year statute of limitation for a class action suit,according to Mr. Surgener, so he is hoping refunds would coverAug. 15, 2012, to the present due to the filing date of the suit.The city raised nearly $3 million in stormwater billings since thefee was enacted in 2011.

Jackson City Manager Patrick Burtch said last week residents wouldhave to wait "about two months" before city officials decide howand if they will present residents with refunds.

Mr. Burtch was not available on Aug. 20 for comment on the classaction filing.

"Every month they wait is another month they wouldn't have to payback. We filed the class action suit to put a marker in time."

"We'll be talking about ways that we might refund the money, butwe can't do it all up front," he said last week. "If we took itout of general fund we'd be in dire financial straits."

In a published opinion released Aug. 2, the court ruled the city'sstormwater fee enacted in May 2011 an unconstitutional tax thatviolates the Headlee Amendment. The ruling requires the city topay back the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including the County ofJackson, but not other residents or business owners within thecity.

None of the plaintiffs paid the stormwater fee, including KleinBrothers and the Jackson Coffee Company, but they could bereimbursed court costs.

The County of Jackson sued the city in December 2011 afterreceiving a $32,000 stormwater bill before the two Jacksonbusinesses followed suit.

"This is critical timing for the city," Mr. Surgener said. "Everymonth they wait is another month they wouldn't have to pay back,"he said. "We filed the class action suit to put a marker intime."

Mr. Surgener owns the Jackson Coffee Company and has practiced lawfor 21 years, 14 of which he worked at various Lansing firms. Hecurrently resides in the Lansing area.

"I hope that prolonged litigation will not be necessary, and thecity will act quickly to refund the stomwater fees wrongfullycollected over the past year," he said.

In the wake of the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, the citytransferred about $240,000 remained in the stormwater fund intothe general fund before it was nixed by City Council vote Tuesday,Aug. 13.

In addition to eliminating 15 Jackson City positions following thecourt's decision, Jackson Mayor Martin Griffin announced the citywill be eliminating services such as street sweeping and leafpickup as well.

"In the aftermath of the court ruling . . . we must make thedifficult decision to eliminate (stormwater utility) services,"Mr. Griffin said earlier this month, reading from a preparedstatement.

The recall involves Klever Kids children's 100% Pima cotton pajamasets and nightgowns sold in boys and girls sizes 2 through 8. Thepajama sets include two-piece long-sleeve shirt and pant sets withan elastic waistband and two-piece short-sleeve shirt and shortsets with an elastic waistband. The sets were sold in multipleprints including shark print, ballerinas, black and blueskeletons, flowers, pink with white polka dot pattern, a two-tonedset with navy and blue striped monster print, and paisley printwith green fabric on the edge. The nightgowns are short-sleevedwith a gathered shoulder hem. The nightgowns were sold inmultiple prints including ballerinas, pink with white polka dots,flowers and paisleys. All the garments have a printed label atthe neck that reads "KleverKids live {Heart} laugh {Heart} love."Some of the pajamas sets are labeled as "flame resistantsleepwear" by a sewn-in garment label along the shirt's bottomright side seam.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuitreverses, concluding that, to the extent the district court hadconcerns that the proposed class definition might not align withthe ultimate outcome of the case, it may have misapprehended itsauthority under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c)(1) to alter or amendits class certification order before final judgment.

"The district court thought itself foreclosed from this optionbecause ruling on the class definition would not be the sort of"inherently tentative" decision amenable to later modification.But there is nothing more permanent about this proposed classdefinition than any other. [A]dopting Plaintiffs' classdefinition in no way binds the district court when it comes timeto rule on the merits, and we cannot detect any other feature ofthis class that removes it from eligibility for adaptation," theSeventh Circuit said.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit said the order denying classcertification for the proposed "stable-value fund" class isreversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 7, 2013 Opinion is availableat http://is.gd/uNggfKfrom Leagle.com.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Student Athletes' Antitrust Suit Survives-----------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat the third time was the charm for student athletes bringingantitrust claims against the NCAA.

Judge Magnus-Stinson had dismissed the case on March 1, butconcluded on Aug. 16 that an amended complaint had successfullydefined a relevant market as required under the act. U.S.Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue set an initial pretrial conferencefor August 29.

"This is the third time that this Court has ruled on thesufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint challenging two NCAA bylawsat issue -- the prohibition on multi-year scholarships and the capon the number of allowable scholarships," she wrote. "This is thefirst time, however, that the Court concludes that the complaintat issue pleads the rough contours of a relevant market that isplausible on its face and in which anticompetitive effects of thechallenged regulations could be felt."

Stacey Osburn, a spokeswoman for the NCAA, which is based inIndianapolis, did not respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs lawyer Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- a partnerin the Chicago office of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,said she drew upon a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit dismissing an earlier complaint as a guide.

"We felt the Seventh Circuit gave us clear instructions on how todefine the relevant market," she said. "Even though it affirmedthe district court, it recognized that clearly there was acommercial transaction involved in the purchase by the NCAA ofstudent athlete services and student athletes providing thoseservices in exchange for an education."

The Seventh Circuit on June 18, 2012, affirmed Judge Magnus-Stinson's dismissal of a separate case brought by Hagens Bermancalled Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Association afterfinding that the plaintiffs had failed to plead a relevant market.That case asserted antitrust violations based on the now-discontinued NCAA rule that limits scholarships to one year andanother rule restricting the number and amount of scholarshipsthat a school can give to student athletes.

The new suit, filed a month after the Seventh Circuit's ruling,challenged the same two NCAA rules at issue in Agnew, plus anadditional ban on scholarships to Division III schools.

The suit was filed by John Rock, who in 2008 accepted ascholarship to play football at Gardner-Webb University in BoilingSprings, N.C., a Division I school. He chose the school based ona pledge from the head coach that his scholarship would be renewedannually as long as he kept his grades up and remained eligiblefor NCAA competition.

But three years later, the school hired a new coach who told Rockhis scholarship had been revoked. Mr. Rock ended up payingthousands of dollars in tuition and room and board to graduatewith a political science degree last year, the suit says.

Berman later amended the complaint to include two additionalplaintiffs with similar claims who played for Division IIIschools.

In dismissing the case the first time around, Judge Magnus-Stinsonsaid that one of the plaintiffs lacked standing. She alsoconcluded that the plaintiffs, by pleading claims based on "thenationwide market for the labor of student athletes" needed towork harder at a "proper identification of a relevant market."

A May 24 amended complaint, relying on the Seventh Circuit'sruling, dropped the Division III claims, and the second plaintiff,leaving only Rock, and limited the relevant market to studentathletes in Division I football.

"In Agnew, the Seventh Circuit recognized that the relevant marketis clearly at play and focused on football players in particular,"Ms. Fegan said.

NCAA attorney Gregory Curtner, a partner in the Ann Arbor, Mich.,office of Schiff Hardin, had argued that Mr. Rock, who played fora school in Division 1-AA, or Football Championship Subdivision,could not assert claims involving its Division 1-A, now calledFootball Bowl Subdivision. He also challenged the relevant marketbeing alleged.

Magnus-Stinson disagreed, concluding that "Mr. Rock has pled therough contours of a relevant market that is plausible on itsface." But she noted that the plaintiffs could struggle as they goforward in the case.

"The Court emphasizes that these conclusions are not anendorsement that Mr. Rock's market as pled will withstand thehigher burdens of proof that accompany summary judgment or trial,where his factual allegations will not be accepted as true withoutsupporting evidence," she wrote. "Whether Mr. Rock can gatherenough evidence to prove that the relevant market he pleads iscorrect is a question for another day."

SPECIALTY COMPOUNDING: Death of 2 Patients Unrelated to Recall--------------------------------------------------------------Juan Carlos Llorca, writing for Associated Press, reports thatTexas health officials say no link has been found between acompounded drug and the death of two patients who developed bloodinfections after receiving it before its recall.

The Food and Drug Administration recalled all products produced bySpecialty Compounding of Cedar Park, Texas, after reports ofbacterial infections affecting 17 patients at two Corpus Christihospitals. Two of the patients died, but Chris Van Deusen,spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, saidthat the cause of death is not yet known and no link between themedication and the deaths has been established.

Texas health officials are working with the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, a federal health agency in Atlanta. CDCis analyzing samples of the bacteria taken from the patients tosee if they're all the same strain and come from the same source.Results are expected this week.

Texas officials told the CDC that the patients who receivedcalcium gluconate manufactured by Specialty Compounding developedbloodstream infections and that most of the infections were causedby Rhodococcus equi, which causes illness in horses. It's rarelyseen in people, though there have been reports of it in peoplewith weakened immune systems -- specifically AIDS patients.

An intact sample of the calcium gluconate made by the firm showedgrowth of bacteria of the Rhodococcus species, the CDC said in astatement.

The company has voluntarily recalled all the products it hasmanufactured and distributed since May 9, however the commontreatment in all cases was calcium gluconate. It said theproducts were sent directly to patients nationwide, except inNorth Carolina. They were also distributed to Texas hospitals andphysicians.

CDC officials described calcium gluconate as a drug to help peoplewith low calcium levels. That can include heart patients, cancerpatients or others. The drug is not specifically for anyparticular disease, but to bring up calcium levels andcounterbalance high levels of magnesium or potassium.

In October, hundreds of people were infected in a fungalmeningitis outbreak that was linked to contaminated steroidinjections for back pain. The outbreak been blamed for at least50 deaths nationwide.

Compounding pharmacies mix customized injections, creams and othermedications in formulas specified by doctors. They havetraditionally been overseen by the 50 state boards of pharmacyacross the U.S. But those bodies have struggled to police largercompounding operations that have emerged in recent years,producing medications in bulk and shipping them across statelines.

The New England Compounding Center, the pharmacy at center of themeningitis outbreak, shipped more than 17,600 doses of the paininjection implicated in the case.

Dr. Carmen Catizone, the director of the National Association ofBoards of Pharmacy told Senate lawmakers last May that these largecompounders are essentially manufacturers, and should be regulatedby the Food and Drug Administration.

A Senate proposal, drafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers,calls these operations "compounding manufacturers," and requiresthem to register with FDA and meet the same quality controlstandards as pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly& Co. Traditional compounding pharmacies, generally smalloperations that work with individual doctors, would continue to beregulated by state pharmacy boards.

Since 2001, there have been 75 reported deaths and more than 1,020illnesses connected with compounded drugs, according to anassessment released by the Pew Charitable Trusts at the hearing.

The recall involves the Superex 12V Car Heater with model number21-144 with any date code labeled on the back of the heater. Theproduct is used to warm the interior of a car. The heatercontains a heater and fan in a black housing, with a plug attachedto a cord that is inserted into the lighter socket. An in-linefuse is included along the wiring by the lighter socket plug.

The car heater can draw an excessive amount of current from thevehicle, which may cause the fuse to overheat, posing a firehazard. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:http://is.gd/8ddAhi

Superex Canada Ltd. and Health Canada have received one report ofa fire causing minor damage to the vehicle and burns to the user.

Approximately 67,908 units of the affected heaters were soldthrough various retailers across Canada.

The affected heaters were manufactured in China and sold between2007 and 2013.

Companies

Manufacturer Autotek Products Ltd. China

Distributor Superex Canada Ltd. Toronto Ontario Canada

TERRI LYNN: Recalls Deluxe Mixed Nuts on Possible Allergy---------------------------------------------------------Terri Lynn, Inc. of Elgin, IL, is recalling 855 packages of itsDeluxe Mixed Nuts because it may contain undeclared peanuts.People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious orlife-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Deluxe Mixed Nuts were shipped to various customersof Terri Lynn, Inc. in the United States only; Ill., Ind., Ga.,Oh., W.Va., Md., Wi., Fla., Ct., Mi., Ky., Tn., Neb., Ok., N.J.,and Alaska. This product was also sold through its outlet storelocated in Elgin, Illinois.

The product was sold in 16 ounce Terri Lynn Green Fund RaisingBags described as Deluxe Mixed Nuts No Peanuts with lot code 3180located on the front of the bag and 12 ounce Terri Lynn Blue bagsdescribed as Deluxe Mixed Nuts with Macadamias with a best buydate of 12/29/14 on the back of the bag. Pictures of the Productsare available at:

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with thisproblem.

The recall was initiated after peanuts were discovered in a bag ofDeluxe Mixed Nuts which does not reveal the presence of peanuts.Terri Lynn's investigation has not uncovered any additional bagswith this problem, but this recall is being done to ensure thesafety of its customers.

Customers are requested to return any bags they may have for afull refund or replacement. Contact Terri Lynn, Inc. immediatelyat 800-323-0775, Monday thru Friday, 8:00A.M. to 4:30P.M. Centraltime to obtain your Return Authorization instructions and toanswer any additional questions you may have.

The case was brought before the United States District CourtNorthern District of California, San Jose Division, by Daryl DeKeczer, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff, against Tetley USA, Inc., Defendant, CaseNo.: 5:12-CV-02409 EJD.

A copy of the dismissal order signed by United States DistrictJudge Edward J. Davila on Aug. 16, 2013, is available fromCourthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/wza1YR

TOYOTA MOTOR: Judge Rejects Late Evidence of Software Bug---------------------------------------------------------Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reportsthat a federal judge has tentatively granted Toyota's request tostrike recent evidence from a plaintiff's software expert whoclaims to have identified a bug in the electronic throttle controlsystem's source code responsible for unintended accelerationdefects in its vehicles.

U.S. District Judge James Selna, who heard arguments on therequest on Aug. 20, found that the report, served this month, camefour months after the deadline and following the close of expertdiscovery in the case.

"The umbrella term 'software defects' cannot be used to injectinto the litigation an entirely new defect at this late date," hewrote. "The record seems clear that Plaintiffs' software expertscontinued to review source code after their deadlines and foundadditional evidence to formulate new opinions. Although thesestrengthen Plaintiffs' litigation position, that alone does notjustify denying the Motion to Strike."

Carly Schaffner, a spokeswoman for Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., inan emailed statement to The National Law Journal, wrote: "We arepleased that the Court agreed that plaintiff's counsel cannotintroduce new and untested defect theories at this late date,nearly a month after the close of expert discovery. After nearlythree years of litigating this case, plaintiff's experts stillhave no viable software defect theory and have never replicatedunintended acceleration in a Toyota vehicle."

Michael Barr, who specializes in embedded software programming,was deposed on July 3 as an expert for the estate of Ida St. John,83, who suffered back injuries after her 2005 Camry acceleratedwhile at a stop sign. The case, scheduled to go to trial onNovember 5, is the first bellwether to go before jurors from amonghundreds of cases pending in multidistrict litigation in federalcourt in Santa Ana, Calif.

Toyota attorney Joel Smith, managing partner of the Columbia,S.C., office of Bowman and Brooke, moved on August 9 to strikeMr. Barr's report, arguing that plaintiffs attorneys were merelyattempting to improperly assert a new defect theory. Plaintiffsattorney Todd Walburg -- twalburg@lchb.com -- a partner at SanFrancisco's Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, in an August 14response, insisted that Barr was merely supplementing his owntestimony and that of another expert.

The case alleges that Ms. St. John's vehicle accelerated onApril 15, 2009, while at a stop sign in Columbus, Ga. St. Johnallegedly hit the brakes, but the car sped toward an elementaryschool, where it crashed into the gymnasium. Ms. St. John diedlast year.

WESTLAND MILK: China Suspends Importation of Milk Extract---------------------------------------------------------Laurie Burkitt, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports thatChinese authorities suspended and seized imports of milk powderfrom a New Zealand cooperative after the producer said some of itsshipments to China were contaminated. It was the latest blow tothe image of New Zealand dairy products in a critical market.

China's product-safety agency said on Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013, thatit is calling for additional quality tests of Westland MilkProducts' milk protein lactoferrin. The General Administration ofQuality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said it seized 390kilograms, or 860 pounds, of the protein, a milk extract used inproducts such as infant formula.

A spokesman for Westland said the company supports the Chineseauthorities' decision and expects that sales will return to normalafter the problem lactoferrin batches are cleared.

The Chinese agency said Tuesday, Aug. 20, that it will require allNew Zealand companies supplying China with lactoferrin to providenitrate-test reports to ensure consumer safety.

New Zealand, a major dairy supplier to China, has been underheightened scrutiny in China in recent weeks. The country'slargest milk-powder exporter, Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd.,said earlier this month that some infant formula ingredients itexported to China contained potentially hazardous bacteria.Fonterra recalled products and apologized to Chinese consumers forthe problem.

* * *

The Associated Press reports that China's product safety agencyhas told New Zealand suppliers of a milk product to performadditional quality tests following a new contamination problem.

The agency said on Aug. 20 it has impounded 390 kilograms (860pounds) of lactoferrin powder supplied by Westland Milk ProductsCo. after the company said it found high levels of nitrate in thefood supplement.

Westland said cleaning products containing nitrates were notproperly flushed from its factory.

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection andQuarantine said all New Zealand suppliers of lactoferrin must testit for nitrate and Westland must test all its products.

New Zealand milk has faced heightened scrutiny in China aftersupplier Fonterra found bacteria that can cause botulism in itsbaby formula ingredients.

WILTON INDUSTRIES: Recalls Chefmate Tea Kettles Due to Burn Hazard------------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withWilton Industries Inc., Woodridge, Ill., announced a voluntaryrecall of about 716,000 in the United States and 1,400 in CanadaChefmate 2-Quart Tea Kettles. Consumers should stop using thisproduct unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell orattempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Steam can travel up the handle, or water can spill from the spout,posing a burn hazard to the consumer. In addition, the leakingsteam can cause the kettle to fail to whistle. If watercompletely evaporates from the kettle, the aluminum bottom canmelt onto the stove and pose a burn hazard.

The firm has received 13 reports of incidents, including fivereports of steam traveling up the handle, three reports of hotwater spilling from the spout and a report of a hot handle. Inaddition, four consumers reported the tea kettle base melting ontothe stove burner. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Chefmate 2-quart tea kettles sold with a blackenamel finish and a solid black resin handle. The Chefmate logois stamped on the bottom of the aluminum tea kettle.

Speaking at the Technology Policy Institute's annual conference inAspen, Colo., Ms. Ramirez said the FTC is keeping a close eye on"big data" companies, and is ready to take action when consumerprivacy is under threat.

"The FTC recognizes that the effective use of big data has thepotential to unleash a new wave of productivity and growth,"Ms. Ramirez said in her prepared remarks. "Like the lifeguard atthe beach, though, the FTC will remain vigilant to ensure thatwhile innovation pushes forward, consumer privacy is not engulfedby that wave."

Ms. Ramirez pointed to privacy suits the FTC brought againstGoogle Inc., Facebook Inc., and others during the past few years.

In 2012, Google reached a record $22.5 million settlement with theFTC to resolve charges that it misled users of Apple Inc.'s Safariweb browser into believing that it wouldn't put tracking cookieson their computers. Facebook last year also agreed to settlecharges that it misled its users about their privacy, saying theycould keep their information private. The social media giantdidn't pay a penalty, but the FTC required the company to havebiennial privacy audits and take other steps intended to protectusers' privacy.

Additionally, the FTC plans to release a report this year about"data brokers," which gather consumer information to developmeticulous profiles of individuals, Ms. Ramirez said.

And she said the agency is looking to do more.

The FTC is pushing Congress for the power to secure civilpenalties against businesses that "fail to maintain reasonablesecurity," Ms. Ramirez said. The agency also is urging Congressto pass "baseline privacy legislation" that would increasetransparency about companies' collection of user information,among other goals, she added.

"Addressing the privacy challenges of big data is first andforemost the responsibility of those collecting and using consumerinformation," Ms. Ramirez said. "The time has come for businessesto move their data collection and use practices out of the shadowsand into the sunlight. But the FTC has a critical role to play aswell."

According to the report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walshdenied Specialty Products' motion to hold off on thatdetermination or at least to suspend any proceedings based on it,rebuffing arguments that Specialty Products would likely succeedwith its "substantial and strong" appeal.

Cleveland, Ohio-based Specialty Products Holdings Corp., aka RPM,Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of RPM International Inc. TheCompany is the holding company parent of Bondex International,Inc., and the direct or indirect parent of certain additionaldomestic and foreign subsidiaries. The Company claims to be aleading manufacturer, distributor and seller of various specialtychemical product lines, including exterior insulating finishingsystems, powder coatings, fluorescent colorants and pigments,cleaning and protection products, fuel additives, wood treatmentsand coatings and sealants, in both the industrial and consumermarkets.

On May 20, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order estimatingthe amount of the Debtors' asbestos liabilities, and a relatedmemorandum opinion in support of the estimation order. TheBankruptcy Court estimated the current and future asbestos claimsassociated with Bondex International, Inc. and Specialty ProductsHolding at approximately $1.17 billion. The estimation hearingrepresents one step in the legal process in helping to determinethe amount of potential funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atlantic Richfield Faces Suit Over Health Hazards------------------------------------------------------------------Kelly Holleran, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reportsthat one Harris County resident and two Orange County residentshave filed an asbestos suit against four defendant corporations,claiming the asbestos-related disease with which a man wasdiagnosed was wrongfully caused.

Defending companies named in the complaint are Atlantic RichfieldCo., Beazer East Inc., Certainteed Corp. and Guard-Line Inc.

The plaintiffs allege Floyd Hawkins's disease was caused becausehe inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers whileat work. They claim he did not know of the hazards of asbestosexposure, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs state the defendants failed to adequately warnFloyd Hawkins of the serious health hazards related to asbestosexposure and failed to provide him with what would be consideredadequate and safe working apparel.

In addition, the defending companies failed to provide FloydHawkins with a safe workplace, allowed a dangerous condition toexist, failed to warn Floyd Hawkins of the hazardous condition andto warn him that asbestos particles could lead to disease andfailed to market asbestos products that were safe to use,according to the complaint.

The defendants negligently failed to test their products beforethey were released into the stream of commerce; failed to placewarning labels on the asbestos products; failed to warn FloydHawkins on the proper way to handle asbestos products; failed toenforce a safety plan; and failed to follow governmentregulations, the suit states.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking general, punitive,special and exemplary damages, plus costs, pre- and post-judgmentinterest and other relief to which they may be entitled.

They will be represented by Tina H. Bradley --tbradley@hobsonlaw.com -- of Hobson & Bradley in Beaumont.

The case has been assigned to Judge Gary Sanderson, 60th DistrictCourt.

Case No. B194-570

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Had $703-Mil Current Liability at June 30--------------------------------------------------------------Under a 2009 settlement arrangement among PPG Industries, Inc.,certain insurance carriers, the official committee representingasbestos claimants in Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, $703 millionis reported as a current liability, according to the Company'sForm 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involvingclaims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. Most ofPPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs thatPPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containingthermal insulation products, known as Unibestos, manufactured anddistributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"). PPG andCorning Incorporated are each 50 percent shareholders of PC. PPGhas denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims forany injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16, 2000 orderwhich stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG, PPG was oneof many defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involvingapproximately 114,000 claims served on PPG. During the period ofthe stay, PPG generally has not been aware of the dispositions, ifany, of these asbestos claims.

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania locatedin Pittsburgh, Pa.

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amendedPC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding EffectiveDate. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG will relinquish any claimto its equity interest in PC, convey the stock it owns inPittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer 1,388,889 shares of PPG'scommon stock or cash equal to the fair value of such shares asdefined in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. PPG will makeaggregate cash payments to the Trust of approximately $825million, payable according to a fixed payment schedule over aperiod ending in 2023. The first payment is due on the FundingEffective Date. PPG would have the right, in its sole discretion,to prepay these cash payments to the Trust at any time at adiscount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG'shistorical insurance carriers participating in the third amendedPC plan of reorganization will also make cash payments to theTrust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding EffectiveDate and 2027. These payments could also be prepaid to the Trustat any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of theprepayment date. PPG will grant asbestos releases andindemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amendedcoverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remainingcoverage of premises claims. PPG will grant certain participatinginsurers full policy releases on primary policies and full productliability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will alsogrant certain other participating excess insurers credit againsttheir product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 Settlement Arrangement was $162million less than the amount that would have been due under the2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This reduction is attributable toa number of negotiated provisions in the 2009 PPG SettlementArrangement, including the provisions relating to the channelinginjunction under which PPG retains liability for any non-PCRelationship Claims. PPG will retain such amount as a reserve forasbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust,as this amount represents PPG's best estimate of its liability forthese claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claiminformation or settlement history on which to base a betterestimate of this liability, in light of the fact that theBankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since 2000. As aresult, PPG's reserve at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 forasbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to the Trust is$162 million. This amount is included within "Other liabilities"on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In addition,under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will retain for itsown account rights to recover proceeds from certain historicalinsurance assets, including policies issued by non-participatinginsurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would have beenassigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG SettlementArrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan ofreorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the BankruptcyCourt stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestosclaims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the thirdamended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimatedliability for such claims and related insurance assets thenavailable to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on aperiodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reservefor these claims is required.

Of the total obligation of $942 million under the 2009 PPGSettlement Arrangement at June 30, 2013, $703 million is reportedas a current liability and the present value of the payments duein the years 2014 to 2023 totaling $239 million is reported as anon-current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion ofthe liability will total $102 million and be reported as expensein the condensed consolidated statement of income over the periodthrough 2023.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an"Other current asset" as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 inthe accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. Paymentsunder the fixed payment schedule require annual payments that aredue each June. The current portion of the asbestos settlementliability included in the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet as of June 30, 2013 consists of all such paymentsrequired through June 2013, the fair value of PPG's common stockand the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh Corning Europe.The net present value of the remaining payments due is included inthe long-term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanyingcondensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2013.

PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) is a global supplier of protective anddecorative coatings. PPG operates in six business segments. ThePerformance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and ArchitecturalCoatings-EMEA segments supply protective and decorative finishesfor customers in a range of end use markets, including industrialequipment, appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminumextrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraftequipment; automotive original equipment; and other industrial andconsumer products. The Optical and Specialty Materials segmentconsist of the optical products and silicas businesses. It is aproducer and supplier of basic chemicals. Glass segment producesflat glass and continuous-strand fiber glass. The Glass businesssegment consists of the flat glass and fiber glass businesses. InJanuary 2013, the combined company formed by uniting Georgia Gulfwith PPG's former commodity chemicals business is named AxiallCorporation.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Increases Reserves by $130MM----------------------------------------------------------------Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., increased its net asbestosreserves by $130 million based on its annual ground-up asbestosreserve evaluation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2013.

For paid and incurred losses and loss adjustment expensesreporting, the Company classifies its asbestos and environmentalreserves into three categories: Direct, Assumed Reinsurance andLondon Market. Direct insurance includes primary and excesscoverage. Assumed reinsurance includes both "treaty" reinsurance(covering broad categories of claims or blocks of business) and"facultative" reinsurance (covering specific risks or individualpolicies of primary or excess insurance companies). London Marketbusiness includes the business written by one or more of theCompany's subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, which are no longeractive in the insurance or reinsurance business. Such businessincludes both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance.

Of the three categories of claims (Direct, Assumed Reinsurance andLondon Market), direct policies tend to have the greatest factualdevelopment from which to estimate the Company's exposures.

Assumed reinsurance exposures are inherently less predictable thandirect insurance exposures because the Company may not receivenotice of a reinsurance claim until the underlying directinsurance claim is mature. This causes a delay in the receipt ofinformation at the reinsurer level and adds to the uncertainty ofestimating related reserves.

London Market exposures are the most uncertain of the threecategories of claims. As a participant in the London Market(comprised of both Lloyd's of London and London Market companies),certain subsidiaries of the Company wrote business on asubscription basis, with those subsidiaries' involvement beinglimited to a relatively small percentage of a total contractplacement. Claims are reported, via a broker, to the "lead"underwriter and, once agreed to, are presented to the followingmarkets for concurrence. This reporting and claim agreementprocess makes estimating liabilities for this business the mostuncertain of the three categories of claims.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company completed itsannual ground-up asbestos reserve evaluation. As part of thisevaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domesticinsurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability, as well asassumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures forboth direct insurance and assumed reinsurance. Based on thisevaluation, the Company increased its net asbestos reserves by$130 million. The Company found estimates for individual caseschanged based upon the particular circumstances of such accounts.These changes were case specific and not as a result of anyunderlying change in the current environment. The Companyexperienced moderate increases in claim frequency and severity aswell as expense and costs associated with litigating asbestoscoverage matters, particularly against certain smaller, moreperipheral insureds. The Company also experienced unfavorabledevelopment on certain of its assumed reinsurance accounts drivenlargely by the same factors experienced by the directpolicyholders. The Company currently expects to continue toperform an evaluation of its asbestos liabilities annually.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company completed itsannual ground-up environmental reserve evaluation. As part of thisevaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct domesticinsurance accounts exposed to environmental liability, as well asassumed reinsurance accounts and its London Market exposures forboth direct and assumed reinsurance. Based on this evaluation, theCompany increased its net environmental reserves by $10. TheCompany found estimates for certain individual account exposuresincreased based upon unfavorable litigation results and increasedclean-up or expense costs. The Company currently expects tocontinue to perform a ground-up evaluation of its environmentalliabilities annually and regularly evaluate the Company'shistorical direct net loss and expense paid and reportedexperience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experienceby calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends,fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paidand reported activity.

The Company divides its gross asbestos and environmental exposuresinto Direct, Assumed Reinsurance and London Market. Directasbestos exposures include Major Asbestos Defendants, Non-MajorAccounts, and Unallocated Direct Accounts.

* Major Asbestos Defendants represent the "Top 70" accounts inTillinghast's published Tiers 1 and 2 and Wellington accounts.Major Asbestos Defendants have the fewest number of asbestosaccounts and include reserves related to PPG Industries, Inc.("PPG"). In January 2009, the Company, along with approximatelythree dozen other insurers, entered into a modified agreement inprinciple with PPG to resolve the Company's coverage obligationsfor all its PPG asbestos liabilities. The agreement is contingenton the fulfillment of certain conditions. Major AsbestosDefendants gross asbestos reserves account for approximately 29%of the Company's total Direct gross asbestos reserves as of June30, 2013.

* Non-Major Accounts are all other open direct asbestos accountsand largely represent smaller and more peripheral defendants.These exposures represent 1,125 accounts and contain approximately44% of the Company's total Direct gross asbestos reserves as ofJune 30, 2013.

* Unallocated Direct Accounts includes an estimate of the reservesnecessary for asbestos claims related to direct insureds that havenot previously tendered asbestos claims to the Company andexposures related to liability claims that may not be subject toan aggregate limit under the applicable policies.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates forasbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions withrespect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of thoseclaims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with nopayment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty withrespect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos andenvironmental adds a greater degree of variability to thesereserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditionalexposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the sizeof the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range maystill not be indicative of the potential variance between theultimate outcome and the recorded reserves. The recorded netreserves as of June 30, 2013, of $2.1 billion ($1.82 billion and$296 for asbestos and environmental, respectively) is within anestimated range, unadjusted for covariance, of $1.7 billion to$2.5 billion. The process of estimating asbestos and environmentalreserves remains subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. TheCompany believes that its current asbestos and environmentalreserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developmentscould cause the Company to change its estimates and ranges of itsasbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of thesechanges could be material to the Company's consolidated operatingresults and liquidity.

Consistent with the Company's long-standing reserve practices, theCompany will continue to review and monitor its reserves inProperty & Casualty Other Operations regularly, including itsannual reviews of asbestos liabilities, reinsurance recoverablesand the allowance for uncollectible reinsurance, and environmentalliabilities, and where future developments indicate, makeappropriate adjustments to the reserves.

Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., formerly The HartfordFinancial Services Group, Inc., is an insurance and financialservices company. The Company is a provider of investment productsand life, property, and casualty insurance to both individual andbusiness customers in the United States of America. The Companymaintains a retail mutual fund operation, whereby the Company,through wholly owned subsidiaries, provides investment managementand administrative services to The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc. andThe Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. (collectively, mutual funds),consisting of 57 mutual funds, as of December 31, 2011. TheCompany operates in four segments: Commercial Markets, ConsumerMarkets, Wealth Management and Runoff Operations. In October 2011,the Company sold Trumbull Services, LLC to ExlService Holdings,Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Unit Has $3.3MM PI Claims Liability-----------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary of Quaker Chemical Corporation, which sold asbestos-containing products, projects to incur approximately $3,300,000 intotal asbestos personal injury claims liability over the next 50years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June30, 2013.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on aninstalled basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuitsalleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiarydiscontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets otherthan the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date,the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed ofwithout payment and there have been no adverse judgments againstthe subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing andanticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currentlyprojected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50years for these claims is approximately $3,300,000 (excludingcosts of defense). Although the Company has also been named as adefendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been activelypursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributedto the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued againstthe subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary'sprimary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay alldefense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed againstthe subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claimsup to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portionof this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer thatis now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have assertedthat the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to theclaims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two ofthe three carriers entered into separate settlement and releaseagreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for$15,000 and $20,000, respectively. The proceeds of bothsettlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims andcosts of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestoslitigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary andthe remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a ClaimHandling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of thesubsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for aminimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreementcontinues until terminated and can only be terminated by eitherparty by providing the other party with a minimum of two yearsprior written notice. As of June 30, 2013, no notice oftermination has been given under this agreement. At the end of theterm of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursueits claim against this insurer regarding the application of thepolicy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverageissues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier areresolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceedswere used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coveragefrom a state guarantee fund established following the insolvencyof one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets andcoverage available to the subsidiary.

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to beexhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claimsagainst the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,especially with respect to claims that are currently not beingactively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believethat such claims would have merit or that the Company would beheld to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of thesubsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the natureof the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number ofsuch claims that have resulted in any payment, the potentialavailability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiarylevel, the additional availability of the Company's own insuranceand the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be heldresponsible for the subsidiary's obligations because of theparent-subsidiary relationship, the Company believes it is notprobable that the Company will incur any material losses. All ofthe asbestos cases pursued against the Company challenging theparent-subsidiary relationship are in the early stages oflitigation. The Company has been successful to date having claimsnaming it dismissed during initial proceedings. Since the Companymay be in this early stage of litigation for some time, it is notpossible to estimate additional losses or range of loss, if any.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $568-Mil Liability at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pendingand future asbestos claims was $568 million, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Separately, the Corporation is and has been involved in a largenumber of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courtsduring the past three decades. These suits principally allegepersonal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containingproducts and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. Thealleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in thepast, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located onUCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filedagainst a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they havesuffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, orthat injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to theCorporation's products.

The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filedagainst UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defendor reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and futureclaims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & PlanningCorporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increasedits December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending andfuture claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Sincethen, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim andresolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC studyat each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrualcontinues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation hasrequested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestosclaim and resolution activity each year to determine theappropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In November 2011, the Corporation requested ARPC to review theCorporation's 2011 asbestos claim and resolution activity anddetermine the appropriateness of updating its then most recentstudy completed in December 2010. In response to that request,ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through October 31, 2011. InJanuary 2012, ARPC stated that an update of its study would notprovide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimatereflected in its December 2010 study and, therefore, the estimatein that study remained applicable. Based on the Corporation's ownreview of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and ARPC'sresponse, the Corporation determined that no change to the accrualwas required. At December 31, 2011, the Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $668 million.

In October 2012, the Corporation requested ARPC to review theCorporation's historical asbestos claim and resolution activityand determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2010study. In response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzeddata through September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based uponARPC's December 2012 study and the Corporation's own review of theasbestos claim and resolution activity for 2012, it was determinedthat no adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31,2012. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending andfuture claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012. At December31, 2012, approximately 18 percent of the recorded liabilityrelated to pending claims and approximately 82 percent related tofuture claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2013 activity, it wasdetermined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June30, 2013. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pendingand future claims was $568 million at June 30, 2013. Approximately17 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims andapproximately 83 percent related to future claims.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable forinsurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liabilitycoverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestosliability was determined by the Corporation after a thoroughreview of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 WellingtonAgreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liabilityinsurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurancesettlements, with due consideration given to applicabledeductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into accountthe solvency and historical payment experience of variousinsurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreementswith insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution andcollection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolveissues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurancecoverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights toinsurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderlyand timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "InsuranceLitigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurersthat were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or donot otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporationregarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order tofacilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurancepolicies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers mayraise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reachedsettlements with most of the carriers involved in the InsuranceLitigation, including settlements reached with two significantcarriers in the fourth quarter of 2009. The Insurance Litigationis ongoing.

The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related toits asbestos liability was $25 million at June 30, 2013 and $25million at December 31, 2012. At June 30, 2013 and December 31,2012, all of the receivable for insurance recoveries was relatedto insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreementand/or do not otherwise have agreements in place regarding theirasbestos-related insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related toits asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables fordefense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers thathave settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company's total receivable for asbestos-related costs was $176 million.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretaximpact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $29million for the second quarter of 2013 ($23 million in the secondquarter of 2012), $51 million for the first six months of 2013($48 million for the first six months of 2012) and was included in"Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of operations.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due considerationgiven to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, andafter taking into account the solvency and historical paymentexperience of various insurance carriers; existing insurancesettlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to theapplicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms andconditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues tobelieve that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries fromall insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-relatedliability and related insurance receivable were based uponcurrent, known facts. However, future events, such as the numberof new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the averagecost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues amonginsurers and the continuing solvency of various insurancecompanies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surroundingasbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actualcosts and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher orlower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannotestimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending andfuture asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. TheCorporation's management believes that it is reasonably possiblethat the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-relatedclaims, including future defense costs, could have a materialimpact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flowsfor a particular period and on the consolidated financial positionof the Corporation.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certaintythe ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims,management believes that adequate provisions have been made forprobable losses with respect to pending claims and proceedings,and that, except for the asbestos-related matters, the ultimateoutcome of all known and future claims, after provisions forinsurance, will not have a material adverse impact on the resultsof operations, cash flows and financial position of theCorporation. Should any losses be sustained in connection with anyof such legal proceedings and claims in excess of provisionsprovided and available insurance, they will be charged to incomewhen determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which areconverted into widely used plastics resins, primarilypolyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer ofethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibersand antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents andintermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetatemonomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Midwest Generation Has 260 Pending Cases---------------------------------------------------------Midwest Generation, LLC, has 260 asbestos cases that were notsettled and dismissed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2013.

Midwest Generation entered into a supplemental agreement withCommonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Company LLC on February20, 2003, to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation of MidwestGeneration's reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims underthe environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset SaleAgreement. Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generationagreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation for50% of specific asbestos claims pending as of February 2003 andrelated expenses less recovery of insurance costs and agreed to asharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated withfuture asbestos-related claims as specified in the agreement. Theobligations under this agreement are not subject to a maximumliability. The supplemental agreement had an initial five-yearterm with an automatic renewal provision for subsequent one-yearterms (subject to the right of either party to terminate);pursuant to the automatic renewal provision, the supplementalagreement has been extended until February 2014. There wereapproximately 260 cases for which Midwest Generation waspotentially liable that had not been settled and dismissed at June30, 2013. Midwest Generation had $53 million recorded in LSTC atJune 30, 2013 related to this contractual indemnity.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 805 Active Cases as of June 30--------------------------------------------------------------United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately805 active asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2013

As of June 30, 2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately805 active cases involving approximately 3,345 plaintiffs. Many ofthese cases involve multiple defendants (typically from fifty tomore than one hundred). About 2,560, or approximately 77 percent,of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictionswhich permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Basedupon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that theactual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims againstU. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number ofplaintiffs. During the six months ended June 30, 2013, U. S. Steelpaid approximately $5 million in settlements. These settlementsand other dispositions resolved approximately 110 claims. New casefilings in the first six months of 2013 added approximately 125claims. At December 31, 2012, U. S. Steel was a defendant inapproximately 790 active cases involving approximately 3,330plaintiffs. During 2012, U. S. Steel paid approximately $15million in settlements. These settlements and other dispositionsresolved approximately 190 claims. New case filings in the yearended December 31, 2012 added approximately 285 claims. Mostclaims filed in 2013 and 2012 involved individual or small groupsof claimants as many jurisdictions no longer permit the filing ofmass complaints.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into threemajor groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly wereexposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workersallegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3)claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws byemployees of former operations of U. S. Steel. In general, theonly insurance available to U. S. Steel with respect to asbestosclaims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-milliondollar retentions. To date, U. S. Steel has received minimalpayments under these policies relating to asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and otherdiseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel iscurrently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately260 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.The potential for damages against defendants may be greater incases in which the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causalrelationship to U. S. Steel or its products or premises; however,with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence ofclaimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel isincreasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the claimantshave been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered anyidentifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuriesthat they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposureto asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way relatedto U. S. Steel or its products or premises.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims isnot material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel doesnot accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is notpossible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect tosuch claims or even to estimate the amount or range of anypossible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against U. S.Steel allege so-called "premises" liability-based alleged exposureon U. S. Steel's current or former premises. These claims are madeby an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.In most cases the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-U.S. Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S.Steel and non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; andthe strength or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steelexposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severityof the injury claimed.

The Company states: "We are unable to estimate the ultimateoutcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings dueto the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despitethis uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolutionof these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U. S.Steel's financial condition, although the resolution of suchmatters could significantly impact results of operations for aparticular quarter. Among the factors considered in reaching thisconclusion are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steelemployed maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestoscontaining products; (2) most asbestos containing material wasremoved or remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago;and (3) U. S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements anddismissals."

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) produces and sellssteel mill products, including flat-rolled and tubular products,in North America and Europe. Operations in North America alsoinclude iron ore and coke production facilities, transportationservices (railroad and barge operations) and real estateoperations. U.S. Steel has three reportable operating segments:Flat-rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) andTubular Products (Tubular). An integrated producer uses iron oreand coke as primary raw materials for steel production. U. S.Steel has annual raw steel production capability of 31.7 millionnet tons (tons) (24.3 million tons in North America and 7.4million tons in Europe). On January 31, 2012, it sold U. S. SteelSerbia d.o.o. (USSS). On February 1, 2012, U. S. Steel completedthe sale of the majority of the operating assets of BirminghamSouthern Railroad Company, as well as the Port BirminghamTerminal.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon has $400.9-Mil Reinsurance at June 30----------------------------------------------------------------OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd., has $400.9 million of reinsurancerecoverable on unpaid losses outstanding under an adverse lossreserve development cover from General Reinsurance CorporationCover, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, OneBeacon has $400.9 million of reinsurancerecoverable on unpaid losses outstanding under the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon's reserves include provisions made for claims thatassert damages from Asbestos and Environmental related exposures.These reserves have been reclassified to liabilities held for saleas of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, as they are part of therun-off business. OneBeacon's insurance subsidiaries seek tolimit losses that may arise from catastrophes or other events byreinsuring with third-party reinsurers. OneBeacon remains liablefor risks reinsured even if the reinsurer does not honor itsobligations under reinsurance contracts.

In connection with the OneBeacon Acquisition, Aviva causedOneBeacon to purchase two reinsurance contracts from subsidiariesof Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: a reinsurance contract with NationalIndemnity Company ("NICO") for up to $2.5 billion in old asbestosand environmental ("A&E") claims and certain other exposures (the"NICO Cover") and an adverse loss reserve development cover fromGeneral Reinsurance Corporation ("GRC") for up to $570.0 million,comprised of $400.0 million of adverse loss reserve developmentoccurring in years 2000 and prior (the "GRC Cover") in addition to$170.0 million of reserves ceded as of the date of the OneBeaconAcquisition. The NICO Cover and GRC Cover, which were contingenton and occurred contemporaneously with the OneBeacon Acquisition,were put in place in lieu of a seller guarantee of loss and LAEreserves and are therefore accounted for under GAAP as a sellerguarantee.

Under the terms of the NICO Cover, NICO receives the economicbenefit of reinsurance recoverables from certain of OneBeacon'sthird party reinsurers ("Third Party Reinsurers") in existence atthe time the NICO Cover was executed ("Third Party Recoverables").As a result, the underlying Third Party Recoverables serve toprotect the $2.5 billion limit of NICO coverage for the benefit ofOneBeacon. OneBeacon estimates that on an incurred basis it hasused approximately $2.3 billion of the coverage provided by NICOat June 30, 2013. Net losses paid totaled approximately $1.6billion as of June 30, 2013. To the extent that actual experiencediffers from OneBeacon's estimate of ultimate A&E losses and ThirdParty Recoverables, future losses could exceed the $198.3 millionof protection remaining under the NICO Cover at June 30, 2013.

Pursuant to the GRC Cover, OneBeacon is not entitled to recoverlosses to the full contract limit if such losses are reimbursed byGRC more quickly than anticipated at the time the contract wassigned. OneBeacon intends to seek reimbursement from GRC only forclaims which result in payment patterns similar to thosesupporting its recoverables recorded pursuant to the GRC Cover.The economic cost of not submitting certain other eligible claimsto GRC is primarily the investment spread between the ratecredited by GRC and the rate achieved by OneBeacon on its owninvestments. This cost, if any, is expected to be nominal.OneBeacon has ceded estimated incurred losses of $562.0 million toGRC under the GRC Cover. As of June 30, 2013, OneBeacon has $400.9million of reinsurance recoverable on unpaid losses outstandingunder the GRC Cover.

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. (OneBeacon) through itssubsidiaries is a specialty property and casualty insurance writerthat offers a range of insurance products through independentagencies, regional and national brokers, wholesalers and managinggeneral agencies. The Company's products relate to professionalliability, marine, energy, entertainment, sports and leisure,excess property, environmental, group accident, property andinland marine, public entities, technology, surety, and tuitionrefund. The Company operates in two segments: Specialty Products,Specialty Industries, and Investing, Financing and Corporate. InFebruary 2012, the Company sold its AutoOne Insurance business(AutoOne) to Interboro Holdings, Inc. (Interboro). In January2013, the Company sold Essentia Insurance Company to Markel Corp.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco Continues to Defend Exposure Suits---------------------------------------------------------Ensco plc continues to defend itself against lawsuits byapproximately 100 plaintiffs alleging personal injury or death dueto asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended June 30, 2013

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been namedas defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi andLouisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek anunspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individualsalleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigsand associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and have filedresponsive pleadings preserving all defenses and challenges tojurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still ongoing and,therefore, available information regarding the nature of allpending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonablydetermine how many of the claimants may have valid claims underthe Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,if any.

In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, wehave other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us inlitigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect finaldisposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have amaterial adverse effect upon our financial position, operatingresults or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to theultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a provider of offshore contract drillingservices to the international oil and gas industry. As of December31, 2011, the Company owned and operated an offshore drilling rigfleet of 77 rigs, including rigs under construction. As ofDecember 31, 2011, its rig fleet included seven drillships, 13dynamically positioned semisubmersible rigs, seven mooredsemisubmersible rigs, 49 jackup rigs and one barge rig. Itscustomers include national and international oil companies. On May31, 2011, the Company completed a merger transaction (the Merger)with Pride International, Inc., (Pride), ENSCO InternationalIncorporated, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary and predecessorof Ensco plc (Ensco Delaware), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, anindirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc (Merger Sub).Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub mergedwith and into Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity and anindirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ensco plc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corporation Continues to Defend PI Claims--------------------------------------------------------------FMC Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe fiscal year ended June 30, 2013,

The Company states: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-relatedpersonal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personalinjury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises ofFMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery orequipment manufactured or sold by businesses classified asdiscontinued operations. We intend to continue managing thesecases in accordance with our historical experience. We haveestablished a reserve for this litigation within our discontinuedoperations and are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of anyexposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve. Ourexperience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rateof filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potentialdefendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to usin particular have varied significantly over the last severalyears. We are a peripheral defendant -- that is, we have nevermanufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As aresult, claim filing rates against us have yet to form apredictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonablyaccurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable toreasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claimsthat may be filed in the future."

FMC Corporation (FMC), is a diversified chemical company. FMCserves agricultural, consumer and industrial markets withsolutions, applications and products. It operates in threebusiness segments: Agricultural Products, Specialty Chemicals andIndustrial Chemicals. Agricultural Products segment develops,markets and sells all three classes of crop protection chemicals,such as insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, with particularstrength in insecticides and herbicides. Specialty Chemicalsconsists of its BioPolymer and lithium businesses and focuses onfood ingredients that are used to enhance texture, color,structure and physical stability; pharmaceutical additives forbinding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications, specialtypolymers and pharmaceutical synthesis. In July 2013, it acquiredrights to crop protection product from Bayer CropScience. In July2013, it acquired Epax Nutra Holding III AS (Norway) and Epax UKHolding III AS (United Kingdom) (together, Epax).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has $418MM PI-related Liability--------------------------------------------------------------The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's accrued asbestos-relatedliability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, bythe Company and its insurers totaled approximately $418 million,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedJune 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We have recorded liabilities totaling $311million and $298 million, including related legal fees expected tobe incurred, for potential product liability and other tortclaims, including asbestos claims, presently asserted against usat June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Of theseamounts, $44 million and $40 million were included in OtherCurrent Liabilities at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,respectively. The amounts recorded were estimated based on anassessment of potential liability using an analysis of availableinformation with respect to pending claims, historical experienceand, where available, recent and current trends. Based upon thatassessment, at June 30, 2013, we do not believe that estimatedreasonably possible losses associated with general and productliability claims in excess of the amounts recorded will have amaterial adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows orresults of operations. However, the amount of our ultimateliability in respect of these matters may differ from theseestimates.

We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from allegedexposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us orpresent in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuitshave been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federalcourts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 106,400 claimsby defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by enteringinto a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-relatedliability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by usand our insurers totaled approximately $418 million through June30, 2013 and $407 million through December 31, 2012.

We periodically, and at least annually, review our existingreserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate ofthe liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, andestimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. Wehad recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unassertedclaims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $140 million and $139million at June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively.

We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $74 millionand $73 million as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012,respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claimrelated losses will be recoverable through insurance during theten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of theseamounts, $11 million and $10 million was included in CurrentAssets as part of Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2013 andDecember 31, 2012, respectively. The recorded receivable consistsof an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-placeagreements with certain primary carriers as well as an amount webelieve is probable of recovery from certain of our excesscoverage insurance carriers.

We believe that, at June 30, 2013, we had approximately $160million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicableto indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. Wealso had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity anddefense costs for asbestos products claims under remainingaggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defensecosts for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basispursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it isreasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost inexcess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot bereasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subjectto varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but notlimited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises anddisease alleged. Depending upon the nature of thesecharacteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legalissues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible byus."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. TheCompany, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range ofapplications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-related chemicals for various applications. The Company is anoperator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company operatedapproximately 1,400 tire and auto service center outlets where itoffered its products for retail sale and provided automotiverepair and other services. The Company manufactures its productsin 53 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries, including theUnited States. It operates through four operating segmentsrepresenting its regional tire businesses: North American Tire;Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA); Latin American Tire,and Asia Pacific Tire.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Has 1,400 Pending Exposure Claims-----------------------------------------------------------------Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,400 pending claimsalleging exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits whereinplaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may haveperformed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the pastseveral decades and through June 30, 2013, we have been named adefendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involvingapproximately 5,300 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately1,400 claims were pending and 3,900 have been closed throughdismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades andthrough June 30, 2013, the claims alleging exposure to asbestosthat have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for anaverage settlement amount of approximately one thousand dollarsper claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accrualsbased upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amountof liability and related expenses, if any. We do not believe thatany unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effecton our future results of operations, financial position or cashflow, and, at June 30, 2013, we had approximately $2,500 accruedfor liability and related expenses. With respect to unassertedasbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potentialclaimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probabilityof a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized andunrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnificationarrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify theamount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of thevariability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, orthe viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policiesfor the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) is one of the integratedengineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services providersand process technology licensors, delivering solutions tocustomers primarily in the energy, petrochemical and naturalresource industries. CB&I consist of three business sectors: SteelPlate Structures, Project Engineering and Construction, and LummusTechnology. Through these business sectors, the Company offersservices both independently and on an integrated basis. As ofDecember 31, 2012, the Company had more than 900 projects inprocess in more than 70 countries. On February 13, 2013, itacquired The Shaw Group Inc. (Shaw).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Continues to Defend Exposure Cases------------------------------------------------------------Huntsman Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestosexposure cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal yearended June 30, 2013.

The Company states: "We have been named as a 'premises defendant'in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims bynonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. Thesecomplaints generally do not provide specific information about thetime period in which the alleged injuries occurred or the allegedexposures giving rise to the asserted liability. This information,which would be central to any estimate of probable loss, generallymust be obtained through legal discovery.

Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to ourownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generallyhave contractually agreed to retain liability for, and toindemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. Thisindemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amountlimitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, wetender it to the prior owner. Rarely do the complaints in thesecases state the amount of damages being sought. The prior owneraccepts responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the casesand payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our nineteen-year experience with tendering these cases, we have not made anypayment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believethat the prior owners have the intention and ability to continueto honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assureyou that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liablefor these cases if they do not.

For the six months ended June 30, 2013, there were 1,072unresolved cases for which service has been received that we havetendered to the indemnifying party, all of which have beenaccepted by the indemnifying party.

We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As ofJune 30, 2013, we had an accrued liability of approximately $10million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable ofapproximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protectionwith respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that ourliability will not exceed our accruals or that our liabilityassociated with these cases would not be material to our financialcondition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we arenot able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of ouraccruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made againstus in the future, and such claims could be material. However,because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of lossesassociated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respectto unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2013.

Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not subjectto indemnification by prior owners or operators. However, we maybe entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of thesecases. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against ushave been dismissed.

As of six months ended June 30, 2013, there were 51 unresolvedcases which service has been received by us.

We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases thatare not subject to indemnification of nil and $82,000 during thesix months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, respectively. As of June30, 2013, we had an accrual of $47,000 relating to these cases. Wecannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accrualsor that our liability associated with these cases would not bematerial to our financial condition, results of operations orliquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount orrange of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestosexposure claims may be made against us in the future, and suchclaims could be material. However, because we are not able toestimate the amount or range of losses associated with suchclaims, we have made no accruals with respect to unassertedasbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2013."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organicchemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Companyoperates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a rangeof chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to arange of consumer and industrial customers. Its products are usedin a range of applications, including those in the adhesives,aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paintsand coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textilechemicals and dye industries. The Company operates in fivesegments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced Materials,Textile Effects and Pigments. In July 2012, the Company acquiredthe remaining interest in Russian joint venture, Huntsman NMG(HNMG). Effective March 12, 2013, it acquired 20% interest inNippon Aqua Co Ltd.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Recorded $6-Mil Litigation Expense----------------------------------------------------------------In the three months ended June 30, 2013, Corning Incorporatedrecorded asbestos litigation expense of $6 million, according tothe Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) each own 50% of the capitalstock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC). Over a period ofmore than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have beennamed in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personalinjury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed forChapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theWestern District of Pennsylvania. Corning, with other relevantparties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan ofReorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections ofthe relevant parties. A proposed PCC plan of reorganization(Amended PCC Plan) filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for theWestern District of Pennsylvania was confirmed by a final order inMay 2013; however, a motion for reconsideration has been filed.Corning also has an equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning EuropeN.V. (PCE), a Belgian corporation, that is a component of theCompany's proposed resolution of the PCC asbestos litigation. AtJune 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the fair value of PCEexceeded its carrying value of $151 million and $149 million,respectively.

The Amended PCC Plan does not include certain other non-PCCasbestos claims that may be or have been raised against Corning.Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigationliability an additional $150 million for the approximately 9,800current non-PCC cases alleging injuries from asbestos, and for anyfuture non-PCC cases. Corning's liability under the Amended PCCPlan and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $680million at June 30, 2013, compared with an estimate of theliability of $671 million at December 31, 2012. In the three andsix months ended June 30, 2013, Corning recorded asbestoslitigation expense of $6 million and $8 million, respectively. Inthe three and six months ended June 30, 2012, Corning recordedasbestos litigation expense of $5 million and $6 million,respectively. Corning's estimated aggregate asbestos litigationliability is classified as a non-current liability as installmentpayments for the cash portion of the obligation are not planned tocommence until more than 12 months after the Amended PCC Planbecomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will befulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's investmentin PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other equity methodinvestment).

On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and orderconfirming, on an interim basis, the Amended PCC Plan. On May 23,2013, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing to review motions forreconsideration of its interim order and, on May 24, 2013, itissued a revised opinion and final order confirming the AmendedPCC Plan. On June 6, 2013, one party filed a motion forreconsideration of that final order which is scheduled for hearingon September 9, 2013. A different party, on June 7, 2013, filed anotice of an appeal of that final order to the U.S. District Courtfor the Western District of Pennsylvania, and this appeal has beenstayed pending resolution of the other party's motion forreconsideration.

Corning Incorporated (Corning) is a global, technology-basedcorporation. The Company operates in five segments: DisplayTechnologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year endedDecember 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, anenvironmentally friendly, display glass developed to enabletechnologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturingprocesses of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portabledevices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers. InMarch 2011, the Company acquired all outstanding shares from theshareholders of MobileAccess. In December 2011, it acquiredMediatech, Inc. In November 2012, Corning acquired the majority ofthe Discovery Labware business from Becton, Dickinson and Company.In May 2013, the Company acquired Bargoa SA.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has 66,000 Exposure Claims at June 30--------------------------------------------------------------There were 66,000 open claims asserting liabilities for personalinjury caused by exposure to asbestos against Ashland Inc.,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedJune 30, 2013.

Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland thatwas acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims allegingpersonal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist indeveloping and annually updating independent reserve estimates forfuture asbestos claims and related costs given variousassumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates,Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project futureasbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, includingclaim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enactedlegislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claimexperience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to theresults of previously conducted third party epidemiologicalstudies estimating the number of people likely to developasbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken inconnection with national analyses of the population expected tohave been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&Aestimates a range of the number of future claims that may befiled, as well as the related costs that may be incurred inresolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilitiesand receivables are recorded within the discontinued operationscaption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestosasserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnificationobligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale ofRiley Stoker Corporation, a former subsidiary. The amount andtiming of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuatesignificantly from period to period.

For the nine months ended June 30, 2013, there were 66,000 openclaims.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defenseand claim settlement costs incurred in connection with itsasbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with theinsurance companies that provide most of the coverage currentlybeing accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reservehave been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. Theamounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that areinsolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or theexhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland hasestimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associatedwith its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretationsand estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurancecoverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurancecarriers remain solvent. Approximately 65% of the estimatedreceivables from insurance companies are expected to be due fromdomestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2013. Theremainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurancecompanies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, andfrom Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligationshave been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashlanddiscounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projectedtiming of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likelysettlement amounts can be determined.

During the December 2011 quarter, Ashland received $7 million incash after reaching a settlement with certain insolvent Londonmarket insurance companies. The cash received from this settlementduring the prior period was recognized as an after-tax gain of $6million within discontinued operations of the Statements ofConsolidated Comprehensive Income since Ashland's policy is to notrecord asbestos receivables for any carriers that are insolventuntil cash is received.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings againstUnderwriters at Lloyd's and certain Chartis (AIG member) companiesseeking to enforce these insurers' contractual obligations toprovide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs underexisting coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland hasinitiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against certainBerkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company andResolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire entitieshave wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'performance of their respective contractual obligations to provideasbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delaycertain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its positionwill be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution ofthese proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing ofloss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurancereceivables from these insurers.

At June 30, 2013, Ashland's receivable for recoveries oflitigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurersamounted to $409 million, of which $85 million relates to costspreviously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $423million at September 30, 2012. During the June 2013 quarter, theannual update of the model used for purposes of valuing theasbestos reserve, and its impact on valuation of future recoveriesfrom insurers, was completed. This model update resulted in a $3million decrease in the receivable for probable insurancerecoveries.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount itbelieves to be the best estimate of future payments for litigationdefense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximatesthe mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from modelresults. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptionsquarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistanceof HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of thisestimate, completed during the June 2013 quarter, it wasdetermined that the liability for Hercules asbestos related claimsshould be increased by $46 million. Total reserves for asbestosclaims were $347 million at June 30, 2013 compared to $320 millionat September 30, 2012.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certainreimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements withinsurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in theasbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurancerecoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurancerecoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based onmanagement's interpretations and estimates surrounding theavailable or applicable insurance coverage, including anassumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. Theestimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Ofthe insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a creditrating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013 and September 30, 2012, the receivables frominsurers amounted to $75 million and $56 million, respectively. Aspreviously mentioned, during the June 2013 quarter, the annualupdate of the model used for purposes of valuing the asbestosreserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries frominsurers was completed. This model update caused a $19 millionincrease in the receivable for probable insurance recoveries.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variablesthat are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to thesignificant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims thatmight be received, other variables include the type and severityof the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency periodassociated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs ofmedical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companiesthat are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding thelitigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from caseto case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative orjudicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect tothese variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as theprojection period lengthens. In light of these inherentuncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves forAshland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range ofpossible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop theseestimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term costmodels was developed. These models are based on national studiesthat predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptionsregarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments andlegal defense costs, as well as other variables mentionedpreviously. Ashland has currently estimated in various modelsranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it isreasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claimsettlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could rangeas high as approximately $740 million for the Ashland asbestos-related litigation and approximately $640 million for the Herculesasbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.4 billion in theaggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selectedin the various models. If actual experience is worse thanprojected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity ofalleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred toresolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase theestimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and theseincreases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company thatprovides products, services and solutions throughout a variety ofindustries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: AshlandSpecialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; AshlandPerformance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. On March 31,2011, Ashland completed the sale of substantially all of theassets of its global distribution business to Nexeo Solutions,LLC. On August 23, 2011, Ashland completed the acquisition ofInternational Specialty Products Inc. (ISP). In January 2012,Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland, whichinclude two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October 2012,the Company had set up a specialties technical research anddevelopment centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal andhome care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 77,000 PI Claims as of June 30-------------------------------------------------------------There were 77 thousand pending claims alleging injury as a resultof exposure to asbestos filed against ITT Corporation, accordingto the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps, Inc., has been joinedas a defendant with numerous other companies in product liabilitylawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. Theseclaims generally allege that certain products sold by us or oursubsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by athird party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To theextent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it wasencapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.

As of June 30, 2013, there were 77 thousand pending claims againstITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in various state and federalcourts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or GouldsPumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, 18thousand claims pending against the Company have been placed oninactive dockets (including in Mississippi) because the plaintiffscannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experienceto date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims aredismissed without any payment from the Company. Managementbelieves that a large majority of the pending claims have littleor no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissedin large groups, the average cost per resolved claim, as well asthe number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from periodto period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filedin the future, and ITT will aggressively defend or seek areasonable resolution, as appropriate.

Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not statea specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, theplaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations toestablish a settlement value based on certain criteria, includingthe number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffsseek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seekto spread the liability, and thus the payments, among manydefendants. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate themaximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimatedto be filed over the next 10 years.

Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those thatmay be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertaintyand risk as there are multiple variables that can affect thetiming, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Werecord a corresponding asbestos-related asset that represents ourbest estimate of probable recoveries from insurers for theestimated asbestos liabilities. Any predictions with respect tothe variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability andrelated asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as theprojection period lengthens. In light of the uncertainties andvariables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company'sasbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company willincur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next10 years which could be material to the financial statements, wedo not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating thosecosts at this time.

The asbestos liability and related receivables reflectmanagement's best estimate of future events. However, futureevents affecting the key factors and other variables for eitherthe asbestos liability or the related receivables could causeactual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower thancurrently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as ourinability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liabilityfor claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is notpossible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending andunasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that futureevents affecting the key factors and other variables within thenext 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyondthe next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have amaterial adverse effect on our financial position, results ofoperations and cash flows.

In the third quarter, we conduct an annual study with theassistance of outside consultants to review and update theunderlying assumptions used in our asbestos liability and relatedasset estimates. During this study, the underlying assumptions areupdated based on our actual experience since our last annualstudy, a reassessment of the appropriate reference period of yearsof experience used in determining each assumption and ourexpectations regarding future conditions, including inflation. Aspart of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, eachquarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitativedata available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing thedata to the expectations on which the most recent annual liabilityand asset estimates were based. Based on this evaluation, theCompany determined that no change in the estimate was warrantedfor the period ended June 30, 2013 other than the incrementalaccrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The netasbestos charges for the three months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012was $15.9 and $9.7, respectively. The net asbestos charges for thesix months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 was $31.9 and $22.3,respectively.

The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expectedrecoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claimsestimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $759.7 and $739.5as of June 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. Thefollowing table provides a rollforward of the estimated asbestosliability and related assets for the six months ended June 30,2013.

ITT is a diversified manufacturer of highly engineered criticalcomponents and customized technology solutions for growingindustrial markets. Building on its heritage of innovation, ITTpartners with its customers to deliver enduring solutions to thekey industries that underpin our modern way of life. Wemanufacture components that are integral to the operation ofsystems and manufacturing processes in the energy, transportationand industrial markets. Our products provide enablingfunctionality for applications where reliability and performanceare critically important to our customers and the users of theirproducts.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Grace Has 430 PD Claims at June 30--------------------------------------------------------Approximately 430 asbestos-related property damage claims remainoutstanding against W.R. Grace & Co., according to the Company'sForm 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

Grace is a defendant in property damage and personal injurylawsuits relating to previously sold asbestos-containing products.As of April 2, 2001 ("Filing Date"), Grace was a defendant in65,656 asbestos-related lawsuits, 17 involving claims for propertydamage (one of which has since been dismissed), and the remainderinvolving 129,191 claims for personal injury. Due to the Filing,holders of asbestos-related claims are stayed from continuing toprosecute pending litigation and from commencing new lawsuitsagainst the Debtors. Grace's obligations with respect to presentand future asbestos claims will be determined through the Chapter11 process.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seekto have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing orrepairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affectedbuildings. Various factors can affect the merit and value of PDClaims, including legal defenses, product identification, theamount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and useof the building, the legal status of the claimant, thejurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the caseis pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, ifnecessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involvedthousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remainunresolved. Eight cases relate to ZAI and eight relate to a numberof former asbestos-containing products (two of which also arealleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,400 additional PD claims were filed prior to theMarch 31, 2003, claims bar date established by the BankruptcyCourt. (The March 31, 2003, claims bar date did not apply to ZAIclaims.) Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number oflegal and factual bases. As of June 30, 2013, approximately 430 PDClaims subject to the March 31, 2003, claims bar date remainoutstanding. The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlementagreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for anaggregate allowed amount of $151.7 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class actionlawsuits in 2000 and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed aspurported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to personsand homes in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitablerelief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of allsuch insulation. The plaintiffs assert that this product is inmillions of homes and that the cost of removal could be severalthousand dollars per home. As a result of the Filing, all of thesecases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims, and testing andanalysis of this product by Grace and others, Grace believes thatZAI was and continues to be safe for its intended purpose andposes little or no threat to human health. The plaintiffs in theZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on the safety of ZAI. InDecember 2006, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion and orderholding that, although ZAI is contaminated with asbestos and canrelease asbestos fibers when disturbed, there is no unreasonablerisk of harm from ZAI. In the event the Joint Plan does not becomeeffective, the ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appealsuch opinion and order if and when it becomes a final order.

At the Debtors' request, in July 2008, the Bankruptcy Courtestablished a claims bar date for U.S. ZAI PD Claims and approveda related notice program that required any person with a U.S. ZAIPD Claim to submit an individual proof of claim no later thanOctober 31, 2008. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims werefiled prior to the October 31, 2008, claims bar date, and as ofJune 30, 2013, an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed.Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claimsfiled before December 31, 2009, would be eligible to seekcompensation from the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund.Approximately 14,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by theDecember 31, 2009 bar date, and as of June 30, 2013, an additional220 Canadian ZAI PD claims were filed subsequent to that bar date.

In November 2008, the Debtors, the Putative Class Counsel to theU.S. ZAI property damage claimants, the PD FCR, and the EquityCommittee reached an agreement designed to resolve all present andfuture U.S. ZAI PD Claims. The terms of the U.S. and Canadian ZAIagreements in principle have been incorporated into the terms ofthe Joint Plan and related documents.

Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,all pending and future PD Claims would be channeled for resolutionto the PD Trust. PD Claims other than U.S. and Canadian ZAI PDClaims would be litigated in the Bankruptcy Court or a U.S.District Court, including all claims and defenses that would havebeen available to the parties prior to the filing of the Chapter11 Cases as well as any defenses based on the March 31, 2003,claims bar date. Any claims determined to be allowed claims wouldbe paid in cash by the PD Trust. Grace would be obligated to fundthe PD Trust every six months in an amount sufficient to enablethe PD Trust to pay all such allowed claims and Trust-relatedexpenses.

All allowed U.S. ZAI PD Claims would be paid by the PD Trust fromthe ZAI PD account and all allowed Canadian ZAI PD Claims would bepaid by the Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund. Grace wouldhave no liability or obligation for asbestos-related ZAI PDclaims, except for its obligations to fund the PD Trust's ZAI PDaccount.

Asbestos personal injury claimants allege adverse health effectsfrom exposure to asbestos-containing products formerlymanufactured by Grace. Historically, Grace's cost to resolve suchclaims has been influenced by numerous variables, including thenature of the disease alleged, product identification, proof ofexposure to a Grace product, negotiation factors, the solvency ofother former producers of asbestos-containing products, cross-claims by co-defendants, the rate at which new claims are filed,the jurisdiction in which the claims are filed, and the defenseand disposition costs associated with these claims.

As of the Filing Date, 129,191 PI Claims were pending againstGrace. Grace believes that a substantial number of additional PIClaims would have been received between the Filing Date and June30, 2013, had such PI Claims not been stayed by the BankruptcyCourt.

The Bankruptcy Court entered a case management order forestimating liability for pending and future PI Claims. A trial forestimating liability for PI Claims began in January 2008 but wassuspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.Upon the occurrence of the effective date under the Joint Plan,all pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claimswould be channeled for resolution to the PI Trust and Grace wouldhave no liability or obligation for asbestos-related personalinjury claims, except for its obligations to fund the PI Trust.

The recorded asbestos-related liability as of June 30, 2013, andDecember 31, 2012, was $2,065.0 million and is included in"liabilities subject to compromise" in the accompanyingConsolidated Balance Sheets. Grace increased its asbestos-relatedliability by $365.0 million in the 2012 fourth quarter to reflectan updated estimate of the value of the consideration payable tothe PI Trust and the PD Trust (the "Trusts") under the Joint Plan,assuming emergence from bankruptcy at the end of 2013. Gracereached an agreement in October 2012 to cash settle the warrant tobe issued to the PI Trust at emergence.

The components of the consideration payable to the Trusts underthe Joint Plan are as follows:

* The warrant to acquire 10 million shares of the Company's commonstock for $17.00 per share, which will be recorded at fair valueon the effective date of the Joint Plan. Under the agreement tocash settle the warrant, the warrant will have a value between$375 million and $490 million. Based on the current trading rangeof Company common stock and other valuation factors, Graceestimates the value of the warrant at emergence will be themaximum value of $490 million.

* The deferred payment obligation of $110 million per year forfive years beginning January 2, 2019, and of $100 million per yearfor ten years beginning January 2, 2024, which will be recorded atfair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan. Graceestimates the fair value of the deferred payment obligation to be$547 million at emergence. The value of the deferred paymentobligation is affected by (i) interest rates; (ii) the Company'scredit standing and the payment period of the deferred payments;(iii) restrictive covenants and terms of the Company's othercredit facilities; (iv) assessment of the risk of a default, whichif default were to occur would require Grace to issue shares ofCompany common stock; and (v) the subordination provisions of thedeferred payment agreement.

The cash payable by Grace to fund the PI and PD Trusts, which willbe recorded at fair value on the effective date of the Joint Plan.Grace estimates the fair value of these payments to be $528million at emergence.

Proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies thatprovide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferredto the PI Trust under the Joint Plan. The recorded asbestos-related insurance receivable and related liability of $500.0million at June 30, 2013, is within the reasonable range ofpossible valuations of these policies at emergence.

Grace periodically evaluates the recorded amount of its asbestos-related liability and may further adjust the liability prior tothe effective date of the Joint Plan if it determines that thecurrently recorded amount no longer represents a reasonableestimate of the value of the consideration payable to the Trustsunder the Joint Plan. The recorded amount of the asbestos-relatedliabilities represents a reasonable estimate of the value of theconsideration payable to the PI Trust and the PD Trust based onthe range of reasonable valuations for the warrant, deferredpayment obligations and other consideration payable to the PITrust and the PD Trust under the Joint Plan as of June 30, 2013,and December 31, 2012.

The ultimate cost of settling the asbestos-related liability willbe based on the value of the consideration transferred to theTrusts at emergence and will vary from the current estimate.

Appeals have been filed in the Third Circuit challenging theDistrict Court order confirming the Joint Plan. If any suchappeals are resolved adversely to Grace and the other Joint Planproponents, and if the Joint Plan cannot be amended to address anydeficiencies identified by the Third Circuit in a mannersatisfactory to Grace and the other Joint Plan proponents, theDebtors would expect to resume the estimation trial, which wassuspended in April 2008 due to the PI Settlement, to determine theamount of its asbestos-related liabilities. Through the PI Claimestimation process and the continued adjudication of PD Claims,Grace would seek to demonstrate that most claims have no valuebecause they fail to establish any significant property damage,health impairment or occupational exposure to asbestos fromGrace's operations or products. If the Bankruptcy Court agreedwith Grace's position on the number of, and the amounts to be paidin respect of, allowed PI Claims and PD Claims, then Gracebelieves that the value of its asbestos-related liability could belower than the recorded amount. However, this outcome would behighly uncertain and would depend on a number of Bankruptcy Courtrulings favorable to Grace's position. Conversely, the PI and PDCommittees and the PI FCR have asserted that Grace's asbestos-related liabilities are substantially higher than the recordedamount, and in fact are in excess of Grace's business value. Ifthe Bankruptcy Court accepted the position of the PI and PDCommittees and the PI FCR, then any plan of reorganization likelywould result in the loss of all or substantially all equity valueby current shareholders.

Grace holds insurance policies that provide coverage for 1962 to1985 with respect to asbestos-related lawsuits and claims. For themost part, coverage for years 1962 through 1972 has beenexhausted, leaving coverage for years 1973 through 1985 availablefor pending and future asbestos claims. Since 1985, insurancecoverage for asbestos-related liabilities has not beencommercially available to Grace. Pursuant to the Joint Plan,proceeds with respect to all of Grace's insurance policies thatprovide coverage for asbestos-related claims would be transferredto the PI Trust.

For each insurance year, Grace's coverage consists of both primaryand excess coverage. With one exception, coverage disputesregarding Grace's primary insurance policies have been settled,and those settlement amounts have been paid in full.

Grace has entered into settlement agreements, which are dependentupon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, with underwriters of aportion of Grace's insurance coverage, which includes theunsettled primary coverage. Under most of these agreements, theinsurers have agreed, subject to certain conditions, to pay to thePI Trust (directly or through an escrow arrangement) an aggregateof $396.1 million in respect of coverage under the affectedpolicies. Under the remaining agreements, the insurers have agreedto reimburse the PI Trust, subject to certain conditions, whichwill result in a partial reimbursement of the claims actually paidby the PI Trust.

Prior to filing the Chapter 11 Cases, Grace entered intosettlement agreements with various excess insurance carriers thatare not dependent upon the effectiveness of the Joint Plan. Theunpaid maximum aggregate amount available under these settlementagreements is approximately $487 million. Grace had no agreementsin place with insurers with respect to approximately $483 millionof excess coverage, which are at layers of coverage that have notyet been triggered. Settlement amounts are generally payable on apercentage of the claims actually paid, which is based on a numberof factors including the years over which a claimant was exposedto an asbestos-containing product. Grace estimates that eligibleclaims would have to exceed $4.0 billion to access the total $970million of coverage. In the event the Joint Plan becomeseffective, some of this settled and unsettled coverage will besuperseded by the settlement agreements that are dependent uponthe effectiveness of the Joint Plan.

Grace has excess coverage with insolvent or non-paying insurancecarriers. Non-paying carriers are those that, although technicallysolvent, are not currently meeting their obligations to payclaims. Grace has filed and continues to file claims in theinsolvency proceedings of these carriers, and Grace periodicallyreceives distributions from some of these insolvent carriers.

The amount of insurance recovered on claims by the PI Trust willdepend on the aggregate amount of insurance settlements on theeffective date of the Joint Plan and a number of factors that willbe determined at the time claims are paid including: the nature ofthe claim, the relevant exposure years, the timing of payment, thesolvency of insurers and the legal status of policy rights. Graceestimates that the recorded amount of $500.0 million is within thereasonable range of possible valuations of these policies atemergence.

W.R. Grace & Co. engages in the production and sale of specialtychemicals and materials worldwide.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 54,969 Claims as of June 30----------------------------------------------------------Crane Co. had 54,969 pending asbestos-related personal injuryclaims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, the Company was a defendant in 54,969 pendingclaims filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injuryor death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 54,969pending claims, approximately 19,200 claims were pending in NewYork, approximately 9,900 claims were pending in Texas,approximately 5,500 claims were pending in Mississippi, andapproximately 3,600 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictionsin which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types ofclaims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworthclaim. The Company plans to file post-trial motions seeking tooverturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce thedamages, which the Company argues were excessive under New Yorkappellate case law governing awards for non-economic losses andfurther were subject to settlement offsets. The Company plans topursue an appeal if necessary.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurredcosts until all available appeals are exhausted and the finalpayment amount is determined.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurancerecoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-monthperiods ended June 30, 2013 and 2012 totaled $43.1 million and$49.7 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition ofsettlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level ofactivity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generallylag the tort system activity by several months or more, and mayshow some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments ofsettlement amounts are not made until all releases and otherrequired documentation are received by the Company, andreimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs byinsurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer andthe payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. TheCompany's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periodsended June 30, 2013 and 2012 totaled $28.9 million and $39.2million, respectively.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2013, the Company has resolved (bysettlement or dismissal) approximately 93,000 claims, notincluding the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurredby the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $380million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim ofapproximately $4,100. The average settlement cost per claimresolved during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010was $6,300, $4,123 and $7,036, respectively. Because claims aresometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolvedclaim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuatesignificantly from period to period. In addition to large groupdismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlementamounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes fromperiod to period in the average settlement cost per claim.Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not consideredin the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestosliability. For a discussion regarding the four most significantfactors affecting the liability estimate.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in thefield, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestosliability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided bythe Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such asthe nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by theclaimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag fromfiling to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&Ato project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company'sexperience during a base reference period of eleven quarterlyperiods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years andthree additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) forclaims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience isthen compared to the results of widely used previously conductedepidemiological studies estimating the number of individualslikely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies wereundertaken in connection with national analyses of the populationof workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using thatinformation, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that wouldbe filed against the Company and estimates the aggregatesettlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolveboth pending and future claims based upon the average settlementcosts by disease during the reference period. This methodology hasbeen accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with theCompany, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs ofdefending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast fromthe Company which is based upon discussions with its defensecounsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate ofthe Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,based on claim experience during the reference period and coveringclaims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against theCompany, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against theCompany and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by theCompany. These factors are interdependent, and no one factorpredominates in determining the liability estimate. Although themethodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costsfor periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to andincluding the endpoint of the asbestos studies), managementbelieves that the level of uncertainty regarding the variousfactors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great toprovide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for yearsbeyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide thebest estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities andcosts is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,including the number and type of claims being filed each year; thejurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of anylegislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restrictingthe types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; andthe likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at thefederal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation inthe tort system have been significantly affected over the pastfive to ten years by the substantial number of companies that havefiled for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestosclaims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, andthe establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts forasbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion forpayments to current and future claimants. These trend factors haveboth positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestoslitigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of theCompany's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in alinear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor thesetrend factors over time and periodically assesses whether analternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company'sexperience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during theupdated reference period (consisting of the preceding elevenquarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by diseasecategory (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non-malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. Inaddition to this claims experience, the Company also considersadditional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the natureof the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings andlegislative developments, and their respective effects on expectedfuture settlement values. As part of this process, the Companyalso takes into account trends in the tort system. Managementconsiders all these factors in conjunction with the liabilityestimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimateis warranted.

Liability Estimate. With the assistance of HR&A, effective as ofDecember 31, 2011, the Company updated and extended its estimateof the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement orindemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pendingclaims and future claims projected to be filed against the Companythrough 2021. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestosclaims filed or projected to be filed through 2017. As a result ofthis updated estimate, the Company recorded an additionalliability of $285 million as of December 31, 2011. The Company'sdecision to take this action at such date was based on severalfactors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonablyestimate this liability for the additional period noted. First,the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constitutingapproximately 8% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims,have accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregatesettlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company andassociated settlement costs have recently stabilized. In theCompany's opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected tobe filed and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable.Second, there have been favorable developments in the trend ofcase law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing theasbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third,there have been significant actions taken by certain statelegislatures and courts over the past several years that havereduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial,which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestosclaims activity. Fourth, the Company has now entered intocoverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excessinsurers, which enables the Company to project a more stablerelationship between settlement and defense costs paid by theCompany and reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of thesefactors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonablyestimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and futureclaims to be filed through 2021. While it is probable that theCompany will incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities anddefense costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, theCompany does not believe that any such amount can be reasonablyestimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recordedfor any costs which may be incurred for claims which may be madesubsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. ThroughJune 30, 2013, the Company's actual experience during the updatedreference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissedgenerally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liabilityestimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Companyconsidered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such asthe nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellaterulings and legislative developments, and their respective effectson expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,the Company determined that no change in the estimate waswarranted for the period ended June 30, 2013. Nevertheless, ifcertain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,the liability could change materially; however, all theassumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability areinterdependent and no single factor predominates in determiningthe liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard toand the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation ofits asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, theCompany believes that a range of potential liability estimatesbeyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonablyestimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending orsubsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% isattributable to settlement and defense costs for future claimsprojected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced whencash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defensecosts. The liability was $749 million as of June 30, 2013. It isnot possible to forecast when cash payments related to theasbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expectedsuch cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,due to the significant proportion of future claims included in theestimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date aclaim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimatedcosts have been discounted to present value due to the inabilityto reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portionof the total estimated liability at June 30, 2013 was $92 millionand represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costsexpected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount isbased upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior yearpayment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significantportion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid byits primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primarycoverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurersto reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/ordefense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered intoagreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under suchcoverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain inforce and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for theCompany's present and future asbestos claims on specified termsand conditions that address, among other things, the share ofasbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer'sobligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, theCompany has entered into an agreement with a group of insurersconfirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under thesubject policies and setting forth a schedule for futurereimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnityand defense payments made. In addition, with nine of its excessinsurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements,settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreedsum, totaling $82.1 million in aggregate. Reimbursements frominsurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costsallocable to their policies have been made in accordance withthese coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of theseagreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnificationof the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handlingprocedures. The Company has concluded settlements with all but oneof its solvent excess insurers whose policies are expected torespond to the aggregate costs included in the updated liabilityestimate. That insurer, which issued a single applicable policy,has been paying the shares of defense and indemnity costs theCompany has allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights.There are no pending legal proceedings between the Company and anyinsurer contesting the Company's asbestos claims under itsinsurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurancerecoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing thisestimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and othersettlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.These additional factors include the financial viability of theinsurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocatedto the various insurance policies and the years covered by thosepolicies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by theinsurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage ofvarious policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. Inaddition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will varybecause the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claimsinvolves multiple insurers, with different policy terms andcertain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legalcounsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insuranceconsultants to assist management in the estimation of probableinsurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimateand assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurancecarriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and otherfactors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating riskmitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or otherfactors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultantscompiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurancepolicies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlementand defense costs and the allocation of such costs between suchinsurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as ofDecember 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filedthrough 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted thatapproximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by theCompany's insurers. While there are overall limits on theaggregate amount of insurance available to the Company withrespect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reachedby the total estimated liability currently recorded by theCompany, and such overall limits did not influence the Company inits determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion ofthe asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurancecoverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurancein those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of theasbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filedthrough 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverageallocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded asof December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurancereimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset isreduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers arereceived. The asset was $188 million as of June 30, 2013.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursementrate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in orderto confirm its overall consistency with the Company's establishedreserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performanceof the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effectof any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyoutagreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developmentsthat have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period toperiod, and will decline over time.

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-relatedclaims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there aremultiple variables that can affect the timing, severity andquantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Companycautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions withrespect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based onpast experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. Asignificant upward or downward trend in the number of claimsfiled, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, thejurisdiction where filed and the quality of the productidentification, or a significant upward or downward trend in thecosts of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstandappeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,or significant change in relevant case law could also change theestimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probablesettlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities alsoaffect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do anumber of additional factors. These additional factors include thefinancial viability of the insurance companies, the method bywhich losses will be allocated to the various insurance policiesand the years covered by those policies, how settlement anddefense costs will be covered by the insurance policies andinterpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy termsand limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to theuncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can begiven regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, toenforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies orsettlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and theCompany will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-relatedliability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement aswell as the underlying assumptions and process used to derivethese amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Companyincurring future charges or increases to income to adjust thecarrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly ifthe number of claims and settlement and defense costs changesignificantly, or if there are significant developments in thetrend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation oranother alternative solution is implemented; however, the Companyis currently unable to estimate such future changes and,accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incuradditional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs inexcess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does notbelieve that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,the effect on the results of operations, financial position andcash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimatescould be material.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. Its primary markets are aerospace, defenseelectronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle(RV), transportation, automated merchandising, chemical,pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services andutilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, theAerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The EngineeredMaterials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plasticpanels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of twobusinesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In June 2012, it sold AzonixCorporation to Cooper Industries.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending PI Cases at June 30-------------------------------------------------------------AK Steel Holding Corporation had 432 asbestos-related personalinjury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedJune 30, 2013.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has beennamed as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injuryas a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of theselawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to havebeen exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a currentor former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos casespending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specificdollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specificdollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes amonetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetaryclaim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does notattempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the variousdefendants.

There were 432 asbestos cases pending at June 30, 2013, of which127 had total claims with specific dollar claims for damagesinvolving a total of 2,388 plaintiffs and 17,458 defendants.

In each case, the amount is per plaintiff against all of thedefendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at theoutset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of aclaim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possibleat the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually willpursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only bedetermined through written interrogatories or other discoveryafter a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multipleplaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially onlyaccounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steelhas determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiffwill pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustmentto statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AKSteel's experience to date that only a small percentage ofasbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a targetdefendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of theseclaims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a smallfraction of the damages initially claimed.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, fiveasbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in fourseparate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AKSteel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend theasbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its presentknowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolutionin the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will havea materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated resultsof operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularlyclaims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantialuncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantlyvariable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect ofbankruptcies of other companies currently or historicallydefending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding thelitigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from caseto case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to besuffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment oflegislation affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integratedproducer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steelsand tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK SteelCorporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking andfinishing plants and tubular production facilities located inIndiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operationsproduce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialtystainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and stripform, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished intowelded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations includeEuropean trading companies that buy and sell steel and steelproducts and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Navy Vets Have Highest Rates of Mesothelioma----------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers and Settlements reported that US Navy Veterans have someof the highest incidence of mesothelioma, or asbestos-related lungcancers of all Americans. This is because during the 1950's,1960's, 1970's, and 1980's asbestos was used on most parts of allUS Navy ships, especially in engine rooms, ammunition magazines,repair rooms, fuel storage areas, and or electronics areas.

Currently, there are over 20 million US Navy veterans, many ofwhom will have worked at Navy shipyards across the US. Accordingto the Centers for Disease Control, the six states that see thehighest rate of individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma includeMaine, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Wyoming, andWashington. Both Washington, and Maine have major shipyards. Otherstates with major shipyards include California, Virginia,Louisiana, Alabama, Maryland, and Texas.

Sadly, US Navy veterans aren't the only group of people at highrisk for asbestos disease stemming from workplace exposure, thereport said. Aside from shipyards, power plants, manufacturingfactories, chemical plants, oil refineries, steel mills, mines,smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities, demolitionconstruction work sites, railroads repair yards, automotivemanufacturing facilities, or auto brake repair shops, also posedor pose significant risks for asbestos exposure, particularly forpeople working in these areas during the 1950s through to the endof the 1980s.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Companies Sued for Fibro-related Disease-----------------------------------------------------------Lawyers and Settlements reported that three people have filed anasbestos lawsuit naming four defendant companies as responsiblefor the diagnosis of asbestos related disease in one of theplaintiffs.

According to the report, the defendants named in the complaint areAtlantic Richfield Co., Beazer East Inc., Certainteed Corp. andGuard-Line Inc. Audrey J. Hawkins, Terri Banken and Gina Daigleclaim Floyd Hawkins was diagnosed with lung cancer as a result ofongoing asbestos exposure through the course of his work,specifically through large amounts of asbestos in productsmanufactured, sold, designed, supplied, distributed, mined,milled, relabeled, resold, processed, applied or installed by thedefendants.

Floyd Hawkins's disease resulted from inhaling, ingesting orotherwise absorbing asbestos fibers while at work, the plaintiffsclaim in their suit, the report related. They further allege thatMr. Hawkins was not at any time during his work, aware or madeaware of the hazards of asbestos exposure.

According to the complaint, the defendants failed to adequatelywarn Floyd Hawkins of the serious health hazards related toasbestos exposure and failed to provide him with what would beconsidered adequate and safe working apparel, the report furtherrelated.

Further, the defendants failed to provide Mr. Hawkins with a safeworkplace and allowed dangerous conditions to exist, the complaintstates. The defendants also allegedly were negligent in that theyfailed to test their products before they were released into thestream of commerce; failed to place warning labels on the asbestosproducts; failed to warn Floyd Hawkins on the proper way to handleasbestos products; failed to enforce a safety plan; and failed tofollow government regulations. Because of his disease, FloydHawkins experienced physical pain, suffering and mental anguish;endured emotional distress and physical impairment; and incurredmedical costs, the complaint says.

Floyd Hawkins children also claim that following the death oftheir father they suffered the loss of his care, maintenance,support, services, advice, counsel and reasonable contributionsand suffered mental anguish.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Electrician Awarded $6MM in Exposure Case------------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers and Settlements reported that a retired electrician whofiled an asbestos lawsuit in Louisiana has been awarded by thejury hearing his case, nearly $6 million finding that his allegedasbestos exposures at a Dow Chemical facility was a factor incausing his mesothelioma.

According to the report, at the end of the trial, which ran fourweeks, the Louisiana 18th Judicial District Court for IbervilleParish jury held trial defendant Dow Chemical responsible undertheories of negligence and unreasonably dangerous premises. DowChemical and Westgate, an electrical contractor and theplaintiff's former employer, were the only defendants remaining atthe time of the verdict.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Aussie Victim Handed 'Watershed' Decision----------------------------------------------------------------Rebecca Puddy, writing for The Australian, reported that afterdecades of inequality, South Australian asbestos victims have beenawarded the same compensation as victims in other states.

According to the report, BHP lost an appeal against the widow of aformer worker, Raymond Hamilton, who was exposed to asbestos whileworking in BHP's shipyard at Whyalla.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bourne System Expedites Fibro Removal Projects---------------------------------------------------------------Bourne Courier reported that the Bourne school system this summerhas worked to remove asbestos in ceilings and tiles in threebuildings; Peebles Elementary, Otis Memorial and Bourne HighSchool.

According to the report, flooring tiles in nine BHS classrooms wasremoved along with tiles in three areas at Otis Memorial on JointBase Cape Cod.

Asbestos in the ceiling and flooring at Peebles cafeteria was alsotaken out, the report said. Testing of the area was due Aug. 12,Superintendent Steve Lamarche said. A new cafeteria floor is setto be installed by a contractor, he said.

Lamarche said the floor in a full-day kindergarten classroom atPeebles has also been replaced, the report added.

The superintendent credited the support of the capital outlaycommittee for the expedited asbestos removal scheduling thissummer.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Train Cleaner Dies of Fibro-Related Cancer------------------------------------------------------------------Jenny Moody, writing for Burton Mail, reported that a former steamtrain cleaner died from cancer years after coming into contactwith asbestos, his inquest has heard.

According to the report, Peter King died at Hoar Cross NursingHome on June 26 from mesothelioma, after being given the diagnosison July 27 last year.

Corners officer Stephanie Mason told his inquest, held at BurtonTown Hall, that the 78-year-old had successfully claimed forcompensation from British Rail after his cancer diagnosis as hehad worked for the company years previously cleaning the steamtrains, the report related.

Mr King, who lived in Athlestan Way, Stretton, before moving tothe nursing home, was placed in palliative care due to hiscondition after it was confirmed he was terminally ill, the reportadded. He was also a non-smoker and very infrequent alcoholdrinker.

His wife Linda said it a statement to the inquest: "It is a verycruel and distressing disease for both the patient and thecareer."

South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said mesothelioma isnearly always linked to exposure to asbestos. He said: "Mr Kingwas 78 when he died and during his working life one of his jobswas with British Rail working on the steam trains where he wasexposed to asbestos.

"A number of years later, in 2012, he was diagnosed withmesothelioma.

"As his wife confirmed, it is a horrible condition, not just forthe patient but for the family as well.

"Mr King survived to make a successful claim against British Railbut his health gradually deteriorated and he was moved to thenursing home.

"I am satisfied he died from mesothelioma as the result ofasbestos exposure."

Mr Haigh recorded Mr King died as the result of industrialdisease. He said to Mrs King: "I know this probably comes as nosurprise but I hope it has been of some assistance.

"This condition usually appears many years after exposure toasbestos and I am very sorry this has happened to you."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Manufacturing Workers to Call------------------------------------------------------------------The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "We are incrediblyfocused on making certain all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma,or asbestos exposure forms of lung cancer get the best possiblefinancial compensation. At the top of our list are manufacturingworkers, who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, or asbestosexposure forms of lung cancer, because these types of individualscould be eligible for substantial financial compensation. In theinstances of a manufacturing worker, who worked at a chemicalmanufacturing facility, a oil refinery, a shipyard, or a factory,who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we could easily betalking about compensation that exceeds a million dollars.However, we need to emphasize compensation for mesothelioma, orasbestos exposure forms of lung cancer is a byproduct of theskill, and experience of a mesothelioma attorney, or asbestosexposure law firm, that represents a client, and we only suggestthe nation's leading mesothelioma attorneys, or asbestos exposurelaw firms. When it comes to compensation for mesothelioma, orasbestos exposure lung cancer the quality, and the skill, of theattorney, and their law firm matters." For more informationvictims of mesothelioma, asbestos exposure lung cancer victims, ortheir family members are urged to call the Lung Cancer AsbestosVictims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.

Important Note From The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center: "Whenwe talk about diagnosed a victim of mesothelioma, or asbestosexposure forms of lung cancer, our number one goal is the bestpossible compensation, and national caliber mesothelioma, orasbestos exposure law firms, that really do get the best possiblecompensation for their clients. We also need to emphasize, we aretalking about victims of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lungcancer in all states, including California, Florida, New York, NewJersey, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia,West Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas,Missouri, Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois,Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana,Nevada, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Oregon, Alaska, orany other state. We also need family members, or friends to helpus get these victims identified, and the diagnosed victim, ortheir family members can call us anytime at 866-714-6466, for ourunsurpassed services." http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "Veterans of the USNavy probably had the highest exposure levels to asbestos, becauseasbestos was on all US Navy ships until recently. Other high riskworkplaces for asbestos exposure include shipyards, steel mills,power plants, manufacturing factories, chemical plants, oilrefineries, mines, smelters, aerospace manufacturing facilities,demolition construction work sites, railroad repair yards,automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops,especially if the exposure to asbestos took place in the 1950's,1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. With mesothelioma, or lung cancercaused by asbestos exposure the cancer may not show up untildecades after the exposure. As long as the victim, or their familymembers can prove the exposure to asbestos, we will do everythingpossible to help them get what might be significant financialcompensation." For more information please call the Lung CancerAsbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MTV's 'Real World' Star Dies of Mesothelioma-------------------------------------------------------------Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that celebrity SeanSasser of MTV fame lived productively for 25 years after beingdiagnosed with HIV, a testament to the progress that has been madein treating a once-deadly disease. Yet he lived only six weeksafter being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a reminder ofhow aggressive this asbestos cancer is.

According to the report, Sasser, who rose to fame in "The RealWorld: San Francisco," a reality television show that launched inthe 1990s, died. He was 44. His death came soon after he was hitby the rare but lethal interaction of these two insidiousdiseases.

"If you are HIV positive, and you get mesothelioma, it's going totravel like wildfire. It happens so fast, it makes your headspin," said Raja Flores, M.D., chief of thoracic surgery at MountSinai Hospital in New York City and a renowned authority onmesothelioma, the report related.

"You hardly ever see it -- I've seen it only twice in my life --but you put the two together, and it's a real bad situation,"Flores told Asbestos.com.

Flores did not treat Sasser and did not speak of him specifically,but he responded to a question about the effect that HIV wouldhave on a mesothelioma patient.

Immune System Plays Key Role

Mesothelioma, which is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 Americansannually, is caused by inhalation or ingestion of microscopicasbestos fibers. There is normally a long latency period (10 to 50years) between exposure and diagnosis. It is diagnosed typicallyin older patients (65-70) who worked for many years aroundasbestos products.

The expected survival rate after diagnosis of mesothelioma is 9 to18 months. The key to recent advancements in survival time hasbeen immunotherapy, which fights the disease by strengthening thebody's immune system.

HIV, conversely, attacks the body's immune system and destroyscells that help the body fight various diseases, which is why ittriggers such a negative reaction with mesothelioma.

"I don't know of any connection where HIV will predispose you togetting mesothelioma, but if you put them together, it will travelquickly," Flores said. "It happens so rarely. It's not the typicalpatient population we see."

Sasser, according to various reports, had no known occupationalexposure to asbestos. However, because asbestos was usedextensively in both residential and commercial constructionthroughout much of the 20th century, millions of Americans wereunknowingly exposed to the toxic mineral.

According to a multi-center study in 2009 that is part of CasesJournal and the National Institutes of Health, researchers believethat HIV can make a person prone to developing mesothelioma, andeven suggested it could cause the disease.

"The development of mesothelioma in patients with HIV/AIDS . . .suggests that chronic immunosuppression enhances susceptibility tomesothelioma," says the study. "Cases have been reported in thispatient population without a history of asbestos exposure."

Compelling Story Line

Sasser became well-known after breaking cultural barriers with hiswell-publicized commitment ceremony on "The Real World" show toPedro Zamora. They were the first openly gay, openly HIV-positivecouple on television. Zamora, a better-known AIDS activist, diedof the disease shortly after the final episode of the season airedin 1994.

At the time, AIDS still was considered a fatal disease. It wasn'tuntil later in the decade that rapid advancements in treatmentdeveloped.

Sasser, like many others, was able to manage the disease throughvigilance and medical advancements. His relationship with Zamorabecame the most compelling story line for the show. It also was alandmark moment in television history.

Sasser remained an AIDS activist and educator for many years,although his television career faded. He worked much of this yearin Washington, D.C., as a pastry chef.

Sasser's longtime partner, Michael Kaplan, told CNN, a day afterhis death was announced, that Sasser was diagnosed early in Julywith Stage IV mesothelioma.

It followed diagnostic tests in June that first revealed seriousproblems. He died in the home he shared with Kaplan, according toCNN.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idaho Man Gets Prison for Mishandling Fibro------------------------------------------------------------Todd Dvorak, writing for The Associated Press, reported that ajudge imposed a six-month prison sentence on a former constructionsupervisor convicted of mishandling pipes coated with asbestosduring an upgrade of Orofino's municipal sewer and water system.

According to the report, Douglas Greiner, 52, of Eagle, pleadedguilty in a deal with prosecutors earlier this year to a criminalcharge of violating the federal Clean Air Act. The law and theregulations designed to enforce it spell out how constructioncrews must remove, handle and dispose of hazardous materials likethe decades-old, cement and asbestos-covered pipe that was dug upby Greiner's crew four years ago.

Investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency accusedGreiner, a former employee of Owyhee Construction Inc., of failingto properly oversee as crews removed and cut up the pipe andillegally disposed of 2,400 tons of soil laced with asbestosshards in 16 sites around town, the report said.

As a result, the EPA stepped in and paid nearly $4 million toclean up the disposal sites, the report related.

In U.S. District Court in Boise, Greiner apologized for hisactions and said he never intended to cause harm to anyone.

Public defender, Christian Collins, made a case for leniency,saying no proof exists showing Greiner, a 30-year industryveteran, schemed to shirk federal law or was motivated by criminalor malicious intent. Collins argued the real flaw was thecompany's failure to provide proper training while signingcontracts that clearly spelled out the likelihood of dealing withasbestos piping.

"I should have been on site more often, paid more attention towhat was going on," said Greiner, who also was ordered to sixmonths of house arrest after his prison release. "This whole thingcould have been avoided . . . if everybody on the project had donetheir job."

Judge Edward Lodge acknowledged there was a good argument thatGreiner didn't act intentionally.

"But this is a serious crime. The message has to go out that inthese situations . . . in any of these asbestos cases, big orsmall, you have to oversee them. You can't allow something tohappen that will put people in jeopardy," Lodge said.

Lodge handed out the same sentence to Bradley Eberhart, who wasthe OCI crew foreman on the Orofino project who reported toGreiner.

Officials with the Boise-based construction company did notimmediately return a telephone message left by the AssociatedPress.

Lodge ordered Eberhart to pay $3.9 million in restitution, thecost of the government cleanup. Greiner's attorney challengedefforts to require Greiner to share that financial burden andLodge asked attorneys from both sides to file briefs on the issuebefore making a decision.

According to the report, the depot is in Rye Avenue, Bexley, andsections of Preddy's Lane at the depot's rear have been taped off.

The asbestos was exposed when the roof lifted off, the reportsaid.

A council spokesman said the exposed friable asbestos had beencontained, the report further related.

"A tarp has been fastened onto the exposed area of the roof,professional asbestos removal contractors and a hygenist, who ismonitoring the works, are remediating the site that will beoperational by the end of the week," the spokesman said.

"Our insurance company executives provide their inimitable pointof view on the trends in asbestos litigation," said LynnseyPerrin, founder of Perrin Conferences. "We are pleased to have somany well-regarded leading companies represented on the panel andto offer this unique perspective to conference attendees."

The event brings asbestos insurance, legal, corporate andscientific leaders together to consider the direction and climateof current asbestos litigation. More than 50 acclaimed speakerswill feature at the 5th Annual National Asbestos LitigationConference hosted by Perrin Conferences, acclaimed leader in jointplaintiff/defendant litigation conferences, September 16-18 at theFairmont San Francisco Hotel.

There is no charge for media covering this event. For mediacredentials and further information, please contact Lynnsey Perrinat 610 804 6165 or lperrin@perrinconferences.com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Ipswich PCYC-------------------------------------------------Kieran Banks, writing for The Queensland Times, reported that thehazardous material asbestos has been found at an Ipswich communityfacility used by children.

According to the report, suspect material was found under an"unused" stage at the Ipswich PCYC on Griffith Rd in May andisolated as a precaution after the advice from an asbestos removalcompany.

A sample was taken for analysis and lab results confirmed thepresence of asbestos on sheeting at the PCYC on July 16, thereport said.

Parents are frustrated they were not informed about the finding,the report related. One parent told The Queensland Times shereceived no notification from the PCYC and only learned about theasbestos discovery through a third party. And she said the area inquestion was occasionally used by children.

A PCYC spokesperson said advice from asbestos removalistssuggested the material would not pose a danger if it was leftundisturbed.

The area will remain sealed and isolated until the asbestos isremoved.

Queensland Police-Citizens Youth Welfare Association CEO SeniorSergeant Rob Fiedler said the asbestos is due to be removed onAugust 26.

Snr-Sgt Fielder said any parent, member or staff concerned by thefind can contact the club manager for more information.

"The area is not part of the activities area and the isolation ofthe area has not caused any disruption to activities and thesafety of members of the public or staff," he said.

"In any case, an air clearance certificate will be provided toensure the area is safe prior to completion of works.

"Activities at the club are not affected and we have taken thenecessary precautions. Any parent, member or staff can contact theclub manager."

Snr-Sgt Fiedler said the asbestos removalists were booked in atthe first available appointment.

If asbestos is disturbed it can release dangerous fine particlesof dust containing potentially deadly asbestos fibres. Asbestoscan now only be removed by licensed operators.

The Ipswich PCYC first opened 45 years ago.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Center Urges Victims' Families to Call--------------------------------------------------------------The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center is urging family membersof a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma, or asbestos exposure lungcancer, to step up to the plate, and to call them for on the spotcontact information for the nation's most experienced mesotheliomaattorneys, or asbestos exposure law firms, because when it comesto financial compensation the experience, and the capabilities ofthe mesothelioma attorney, or asbestos exposure law firm is vital.The Lung Cancer asbestos Victims Center says, "The most heartbreaking part about diagnosed victims of mesothelioma, asbestosexposure forms of lung cancer, or their family members is theyfrequently wait too long to explore financial compensationpossibilities, and they end up getting nothing. A mesotheliomafinancial compensation claim can be worth hundreds of thousands,or millions of a dollars, an asbestos exposure lung cancercompensation claim can be worth up to several hundred thousanddollars, but we need family members to call us, so we can get thevictim to the best possible mesothelioma attorneys, or asbestosexposure law firms, because all too often the victim is too old,and too sick to help themselves." For more information diagnosedvictims of mesothelioma, asbestos exposure lung cancer victims,and especially their family members are urged to contact the LungCancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466.http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

The Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center says, "High riskworkplaces for mesothelioma, asbestos exposure forms of lungcancer include the US Navy, factories, shipyards, power plants,chemical plants, oil refineries, aerospace manufacturingfacilities, demolition construction work sites, railroad repairyards, automotive manufacturing facilities, or auto brake shops,especially if the exposure to asbestos took place in the 1950's,1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. With mesothelioma, or lung cancercaused by asbestos exposure the mesothelioma, or lung cancer maynot show up until decades after the exposure. As long as thevictim of mesothelioma, or a lung cancer victim who had asbestosexposure at work, or their family members can prove the exposureto asbestos, we will do everything possible to help them get whatmight be significant financial compensation by suggesting the mostskilled, and experienced lawyers." For more information pleasecall the Lung Cancer Asbestos Victims Center anytime at 866-714-6466. http://LungCancerAsbestosVictimsCenter.Com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Says Fibro Disease 'Like Gun to Head'-------------------------------------------------------------Beth Cherryman, writing for The Evening Telegraph, reported that aformer Dundee painter struck down with an asbestos illness saidit's like living with a "gun to your head".

According to the report, Granddad Willie Stewart, 65, is yetanother victim struck down with the "frightening" condition afterworking for a city decorating firm in the 60s.

The Evening Telegraph revealed fellow city painter Billy Tully wastaking his former employer to court after developing asbestosis,the report said. And Willie has a similar illness which he sayscould develop into cancer "at any time".

"It's a time bomb," he said, the report related. "If it gets tothat stage the doctors said I might just have five or six monthsto live. The worry is over not knowing. It's like there's a gunheld to your head and you don't know when the trigger is going toget pulled."

Willie thinks his condition traces back to a job he did in 1965.He said: "We were working across at Leuchars air base and we hadto scrape asbestos.

"We were covered in it, we had the dust around our mouths likeasbestos beards or moustaches."

Willie started his apprenticeship the same day as Ballumbiegrandad Billy, who is suffering with incurable asbestosis. Andthe pair are appealing to all workmen in the 60s and 70s to getchecked.

"There's a lot more out there," said Willie. "So many young ladswere working with it then."

The granddad of Caitlin, 14, and Kimberley, 11, has thickened andscarred lungs from the asbestos. Willie had lived in Lochee allhis life until he moved with wife Sheila, 65, last year toMidlothian. Billy has a GBP20,000 compensation claim with hisformer employers.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meetings Set on Coolidge School Fibro Clean Up---------------------------------------------------------------Candace Chapman, writing for WBNG.com, reported that with CalvinCoolidge Elementary temporarily closed, the Binghamton SchoolDistrict will provide updates to staff and parents on asbestosabatement.

It scheduled two separate meetings for staff and parents andguardians of students, the report related.

The district closed the elementary school on Aug 7 after testsshowed asbestos fibers in several areas of the building, thereport said. The school board approved an emergency resolution sothe district could get asbestos abatement started as soon aspossible.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concern on Demolition at Turner Brothers Site--------------------------------------------------------------Rochdale Online reported that with the news that part of theTurner Brothers Asbestos site is to be demolished, Save SpoddenValley has given a guarded welcome to a "careful demolition ofpart of the TBA site" but says there is concern about the lack ofofficial communication on the technical issues.

According to the report, the documents seen related to asbestoscontaining materials within the buildings -- there is no specificmention of the risk of accumulated asbestos fibre releaseresulting from decades of dusty production. This fine dust couldbe released from wall and roof voids during demolition.

A spokesman for SSV said: "I'm sorry to say that this is an issuethat Rochdale Council has failed to address," the report related.

For nine years SSV has been asking for outdoor air monitoring torecord any potential environmental asbestos fibre releases, thereport said.

The spokesman said: "Whilst Rochdale Council makes mention of airmonitoring it fails to point out this is just the standard type ofindoor monitoring that is a basic legal requirement."The spokesman added: "We await sight of all relevant documentswhen they become available."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues 47 Companies Over Fibro-related Death-----------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that awoman has named 47 defendants in an asbestos suit that caused herfather's death.

Phillip D. Ohlinger was diagnosed with lung cancer in March anddied on July 9, according to a complaint filed July 30 in KanawhaCircuit Court, the report related.

Ann Ohlinger claims he smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from1950 until 2003, but then quit, the report said.

The defendants exposed Phillip Ohlinger to asbestos during hisemployment as a sales person, laborer, furnance stoker andmaintenance worker from 1953 until 1992, according to the suit.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Records Show Pa. Firm Violations Before Collapse-----------------------------------------------------------------Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated Press, reported that aPhiladelphia demolition contractor racked up several violations atthe site where a wall collapsed onto an adjacent Salvation Armystore, killing six people, according to newly-released records.

According to the report, the city released some permits, emailsand other documents related to the June 5 collapse, which is thesubject of both criminal and civil investigations.

The new documents show that contractor Griffin Campbell had beencited in May for starting interior demolition work beforeinforming the city, and for having asbestos-laden material in atrash bin at the site, the report added. Campbell allegedly toldthe inspector someone had discarded the material into his truck.

The records show that asbestos has since been found at the site,despite a pre-demolition pledge the buildings were asbestos free.

Campbell's lawyer did not immediately return a message, but he hasearlier said his client was an experienced contractor who wasonsite the day of the collapse.

Meanwhile, new video from a transit bus offers new images anddetails of the Market Street collapse.

The permits obtained to demolish three adjacent buildings on theblock lack any detail on how the work was to be done, or who wasto do it. Such safety plans did not have to be filed with thecity.

However, a series of emails between representatives of thebuilding owner, the Salvation Army and city Commerce Director AlanGreenberger detail the owner's stalled efforts to gain access tothe space above the one-story Salvation Army property. STBInvestments Corp., a company linked to developer Richard Basciano,wanted to install a tarp and plywood over the store's roof tocatch any stray debris, and to position a bucket truck over thestore so workers could demolish a four-story brick wall inward --away from the store.

Thomas J. Simmonds Jr., STB's property manager, complained onMay 22 that the Salvation Army was being unresponsive, causing "asituation that poses a threat to life and limb."

Greenberger told The Philadelphia Inquirer, which first reportedon the emails, that he thought he got another email within thehour suggesting the issue was being resolved. A Salvation Armylawyer told the newspaper the two sides were still negotiating.

Neither a tarp nor a bucket truck was in place when the wallcollapsed onto the store two weeks later, burying about 19 peoplein rubble.

Prosecutors believe Benschop may have been using an excavator atthe scene to knock down the wall, rather than doing the delicatetask by hand.

City Councilman James Kenney said that developers frequently runinto delays because of problems negotiating with their neighbors.

"You have to work them out," Kenney said. "They continued to goahead and do the work, in a slipshod way."

A veteran city building inspector, Ronald Wagenhoffer, visited theproject on May 14, six days after a citizen complained that thedemolition looked unsafe. He found nothing amiss that day.Wagenhoffer committed suicide days after the collapse.

According to the report, Sunstream Corporation, a Binghamton-basedenvironmental contracting company, will be overseeing the work,said Karry Mullins, assistant superintendent for administration.Jennings Environmental Management in Binghamton will monitor theair quality.

Disturbed asbestos in the building's basement crawl space wasconfirmed on July 30 after a routine three-year check of the area,the report related. Unsafe air levels in the entire building,excluding the gym and the cafeteria, were confirmed on Aug. 7.

More than 200 students, teachers and city employees were in thebuilding between July 30 and Aug. 7, as part of a free six-weeksummer enrichment program for children entering kindergarten up tograde four, the report added. Binghamton City School Districtofficials shut down the building Aug. 7 after confirming unsafelevels of airborne asbestos.

District officials then submitted a plan for abatement and cleanupto the state Department of Labor. The state approved the plan,allowing the district to hire a contractor and begin work, Mullinssaid.

With classes scheduled to open after Labor Day, district officialsare trying to find a temporary home for Coolidge students.

"We're in the process of looking at schools that recently haveclosed and how can we distribute kids throughout the district toaccommodate their needs," Binghamton Superintendent MarionMartinez said.

School principals have been meeting with district officials toidentify unused or extra space in existing school buildings thatmay accommodate more students. Officials are also looking at othervenues that could keep all the displaced Coolidge studentstogether.

No decision has been made. Martinez said any relocation ordisplacement of students would be temporary until the building canbe thoroughly cleaned out and the air re-tested.

Martinez expects students to be back in the building by December.

"We don't want to set up false expectations," she said. "We wantpeople to settle where they are, we want the least disruption aspossible so that kids can have a good start to the school year."

Materials in the building at the time of the closure cannot beremoved. Photos will be taken to document what is in eachclassroom by certified inspectors and workers.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 25 City Homes Slated for Demolition After Floods-----------------------------------------------------------------Jamie Komarnicki, writing for The Calgary Herald, reported thatCalgary's chief building inspector says 25 homeowners have appliedto have their houses torn down in the wake of the floods, andseven demolition permits have already been granted.

According to the report, as Calgarians continue to assess howbadly their residences were hit by the flood water, several havedecided not to rebuild, said Marco Civitarese.

"There's lots of reasons why owners have come in saying why theywant to demolish, some for the simple fact of redeveloping, somefor the simple fact of cost implications and some that just feltit might be worth more torn down," he said, the report related.

Homeowners need a demolition permit and must ensure all servicesare turned off, including electrical, gas and water, the reportadded. Further, some of the houses may also require asbestosabatement.

The demolition applications came from some of the hardest-hitneighbourhoods, including Bowness and Erlton.

At least one home has already been torn down at the direction ofthe city. The Bowness home, which was razed soon after the watersbegan to recede in early July, had a four-to six-metre sinkholebeneath it, and had about a third of its brick foundation missing.

That home was near collapse and the city ordered it to come downfor public safety reasons, said Civitarese.

The 25 demolition applications represent just a small portion ofthe roughly 3,000 Calgary homes affected by the floods. Unless thehomes pose a danger to the public, the city is leaving it up tothe homeowner to decide whether to tear down and rebuild, saidCivitarese.

"Of course, to remediate it, it costs quite a bit of money to fixsome of these places up," he said.

"That's a choice the owner has to make at the end of the day."

Ald. Dale Hodges, whose ward includes hard-hit Bowness, said hewouldn't be surprised to see more houses brought down in thecommunity but he hasn't yet been made aware of demolitionapplications.

"It's kind of distressing to see what were once perfectly goodhouses in bad shape," he said.

The number of homes elsewhere in the province facing demolitionremains unclear.

A spokeswoman for the province's flood recovery task force saidthe province is still compiling that number.

According to Rick Fraser, the associate minister of recovery andreconstruction for High River, officials are assessing whetherhomes in the southern Alberta community will need to bedemolished, but none have been brought down yet.

Old asbestos or new mould creeping into the homes from the floodwater further complicates any demolition, he said.

"It's critical for people to understand that if it's mould orasbestos, you can't just demolish your home," said Fraser.

"All that stuff needs to be taken out from an environmentalstandpoint first. Once that's done, we can bring down the home ina safe manner."

During the course of the flood and recovery, Alberta HealthServices worked with High River officials to survey the worst hitcommunities.

The authority deemed 448 homes as not fit for habitation --requiring professional remediation before the occupants canreturn, said AHS spokeswoman Shannon Evans.

The homes are now being reassessed to see how many are fit forpeople to live in again once they've been fixed up, she said.

So far, 35 of the 448 homes have had the not-fit-for-habitationassessment lifted, said Evans.

"Assessments continue to proceed, as remediation is completed,"she said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Memorial Outing to Raise Funds for Meso Research-----------------------------------------------------------------The Daily Record reported that after just three years, the JeffCrist Memorial Golf Outing has already raised $86,000 to promoteresearch and awareness about mesothelioma, a rare and aggressiveform of cancer that develops after exposure to asbestos.

According to the report, Crist, a York native, died in September2009 at age 60, five months after being diagnosed with thedisease.

This year, the fourth annual golf event will be held at Sept. 19at Heritage Hills Golf Resort and has a goal of raising $30,000.All proceeds will benefit the International Mesothelioma ResearchProgram in Boston, where Crist went for treatment, the reportadded.

The golf tournament will be a four-player scramble, the reportsaid. There will also be hole-in-one and closest-to-the-pinprizes, plus a putting contest and team prizes in three divisions.The registration package includes golf, cart, lunch, an awardsdinner and more.

The registration fee for individual golfers is $135.

Packages that include sponsorship recognition and multiple golfersstart at $500.

Non-golf sponsorships are also available. Tickets for dinner onlyand a silent auction are also available.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Commonly Ending Up In Illegal Landfills--------------------------------------------------------------Londonberry Sentinel reported that nothing has been done fordumping asbestos illegally in the past two years but it is notunusual to find it mixed with other waste in illegal landfills.

According to the report, the fire started in the large SupercheapAuto shop in the light industrial area at the corner of LeachHighway and North Lake Road just after 4am, the Department of Fireand Emergency Services said.

About 50 career firefighters from 12 stations were called in tofight the blaze and brought it under control by about 5.45am, thereport added.

It was feared an asbestos roof and chemicals inside the storecould cause toxic fumes to spread in the surrounding area.

DFES, City of Melville, Department of Environment and RegulationPollution Response Unit, and Department of Health have been on thescene this morning and have guaranteed to leave the area safe.

People who may have been affected by asbestos as a result of thefire have been contacted, and are working with relevant agenciesto mitigate any potential exposure.

The fire has caused an estimated $5 million in damage, however thecause of the blaze is unknown.

People are asked to report any suspicious behaviour to PoliceCrime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Early Rick Mills from the Department of Fire and Emergencyservices said: "Crews are now mopping up the fire. There was someconcerns originally that the roof was asbestos, that has beenconfirmed, however there is no threat to the wider community."

The Department of Environment and Regulation Pollution ResponseUnit will remain on the scene for the morning to continuemonitoring of the chemicals burnt in the fire.

The blaze belched out plumes of thick smoke which was noticeableacross Myaree and nearby Winthrop, Kardinya and Coolbellup.

Twelve people worked at the shop, which housed many expensiveitems such as $1200 tool boxes.

North Lake Road between Leach Highway and McCoy Street remainedclosed for much of the morning but all roads were open from about12.30pm.

Fire officers remained on the site for several hours this morningand access to affected parts of North Lake Road will be limited.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judiciary Often Remains Roadblock to Transparency------------------------------------------------------------------The Wall Street Journal reported that the good news about asbestoslegal fraud is that there's a straightforward way to expose it.The bad news is that the judiciary too often remains the roadblockto transparency.

According to the report, that's what has been happening in federalbankruptcy court in North Carolina in the case of Garlock SealingTechnologies. The gasket manufacturer never had more thanperipheral involvement in the asbestos business, yet it was forcedinto bankruptcy in 2010 by a flood of frivolous claims.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are now pushing federal Judge George Hodgesto force Garlock to put some $1.3 billion into a bankruptcy trustfor future asbestos claims, the report related. Garlock estimatesits liability is closer to $125 million, but the trust gambit is aplaintiffs' bar favorite to guarantee a perpetual payday. Garlockalso says it has evidence that plaintiffs are "double-dipping" --filing claims with multiple bankruptcy trusts that blame non-Garlock products for their diseases, even as they pursue Garlockin court.

The tort bar is desperate to continue this scam by keeping trustclaims hidden from the public, the report said. The plaintiffs'attorneys argued to Judge Hodges that the information Garlockrooted out about their claims ought to remain "confidential."Judge Hodges agreed, dismissing Garlock's information as not"particularly sexy" or of "interest" to the public. He hasrepeatedly closed his courtroom when Garlock presented evidenceand expert testimony.

The judge's airy dismissal of a public interest is astonishing. Ahandful of other judges have in recent years exposed egregiouscases of double-dipping, inspiring states like Ohio and Oklahomato pass laws to force trust disclosure. The House JudiciaryCommittee in May passed the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency(FACT) Act, which would require the nation's 60 asbestos trustfunds -- yes, there are 60 -- to file quarterly reports thatdetail claimant names and the basis for their payouts.

Garlock's evidence could be especially revealing given thatlawyers from the firms suing it are on public record denying anydouble-dipping even as they have led the campaign againsttransparency. Elihu Inselbuch of Caplin & Drysdale testified inCongress in March against the FACT Act: "The bill also ignores thefact that despite trying to find instances of widespread fraud andabuse, there is none. Defendants have no evidence to support theirassertion of fraud by plaintiffs." If Mr. Inselbuch is soconfident there's no fraud, why does he object to transparency?

The public has an interest in reducing fraudulent claims thatdeplete funds for legitimate victims, and in saving jobs atcompanies that are the casualties of legal malpractice. So thepublic has a right to know if attorneys suing Garlock are claimingone thing in court but another to numerous asbestos bankruptcytrusts. Judge Hodges ought to unseal the Garlock evidence andtestimony and let the public decide what is "sexy."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Testing, Cleanup Underway at Selah School----------------------------------------------------------------Rafael Guerrero, writing for Yakima Herald-Republic, reported thatwith classes at the Selah School District starting, John CampbellElementary School is undergoing cleanup and testing for asbestosafter small traces were detected earlier in the summer.

According to the report, while its presence may cause concernamong parents, teachers and staff, district and environmentalofficials say the hazard is minimal and should be taken care of.

In late June, workers began repairing the roof of the mainbuilding and they eventually noticed material falling from theroof into the attic space, Superintendent Shane Backlund said, thereport added. Testing of the attic revealed "trace amounts" ofasbestos in the air and work on the roof was stopped, Backlundadded. The asbestos originated from roof felt layered between thewooden joists of the roof.

Asbestos, when inhaled over a prolonged period of time, can causeserious damage to the lungs and other organs and is a knowncarcinogen, the report related. The material used to be common inbuilding insulation and as a fire retardant.

The district hired Yakima-based Fulcrum Environmental Consultingto test and remove the fibers, the report said. A first test ofthe air sample was taken the first week in August and a secondtaken this past weekend, said Backlund. While the contaminant wasdetected in the attic, none was detected in the classrooms,offices or hallways.

But to be safe, Backlund said no one is gaining entry into thebuilding until the all-clear is given by the Yakima Regional CleanAir Agency. The agency is in charge of overseeing federal andstate air quality regulations in Yakima County with the exceptionof the Yakama Nation reservation.

Mark Edler, an enforcement officer with the agency, said 11 airsamples were taken in the occupied areas of the building and noasbestos was found. Edler said he anticipates Fulcrum will be donewith cleaning and testing by the middle of the week.

Both Edler and Clean Air Agency Executive Director Gary Pruittagreed the findings at Campbell were not of a "high concern," butit still needed to be addressed. Any level of asbestos, no matterhow small, must be dealt with.

"Until it's cleaned, nobody goes into the building," said Edler.

Backlund said preparation for the first day of school is not beingdisrupted by the main building's temporary closure. Teachers arestill coming in for training and meetings elsewhere in the school,and school staff are taking calls from concerned parents. Campbellis comprised of four buildings and two mobile classrooms.

When asked whether classes would start on time, Backlund said hewas sure that would be the case.

The district, though, has to look at all possibilities, he added.

"Anything is possible," he said. "If we still do get test resultswith trace results (of asbestos), we're going to sit down, come upwith a contingency plan and figure out what to do next."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Zurich Dist. to Hire Second Fibro Inspector-----------------------------------------------------------------Kristy MacKaben, writing for The Chicago Tribune, reported thatMay Whitney Elementary School will be examined for asbestos by twoinspectors after the Lake Zurich Community Unit School District 95board responded to concerns from a member about previousinspections.

According to the report, board member Eileen Maloney wanted tohire a new inspector to replace Asbestos Inspection and Managementof Elk Grove, which has been working for the district since 1991.But her fellow board members decided to go with two sets of eyesfor the inspections that are required twice a year at the schoolbecause of its age and presence of asbestos.

"We've had the same set of eyes for a nearly quarter of a century.It's good to have a second set of eyes," said Maloney, who joinedthe board in May, the report related. "I don't have faith in theinspections they've conducted. There are red flags to me that posesignificant threats to the building."

Her concerns center around pipes, which she believes have beendamaged by water. Inspections have found leaking roofs and otherpipes than those containing asbestos, with reports consistentlysaying the insulation and caulk are in good condition.

"It makes no sense that it's in good condition. That's asignificant shortcoming of the inspection," said Maloney. "I wouldlike to have a better comfort level that the water intrusiondidn't damage the asbestos-containing pipes. A new set of eyes iswhat I'm saying."

Board member Kathy Brown said the current inspector was adequateand hiring another one would be an unnecessary cost.

"You just used the word significant threats to the occupants. Ithink that's pretty alarmist right now," Brown said. "There aremembers of the press here and you're making a lot of assumptions.We need to be careful of what you're assuming and saying. I'm notsaying we can't go get a second of set of eyes, but just do thatbefore we make assumptions."

Inspections at May Whitney are required in February and August.This summer, floor tiles containing asbestos were removed in fourclassrooms as part of a long-term asbestos abatement plan.

To save the $5,000 to $10,000 for a second inspector, Maloneysuggested the district just hire a new one. "To me, I think it'ssilly to pay for it twice. I want a new person to come in and lookat it," she said.

But Brown said, "It seems to me the administration is satisfied bywho they're using now."

"I don't think we want to give up what we have," agreed boardmember Tony Pietro. "I think we have momentum with this person. Iwould be in favor of another set of eyes."

Lyle Erstad, director of facilities and grounds, said he wouldobtain an estimate for hiring a second inspector.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro, Lead Removal at Former Bath School----------------------------------------------------------Alex Lear, writing for The Forecaster, reported that removal ofasbestos and lead from Donald Small School, expected to last untilmid-September, will keep Bath Community Television off the airfrom Sept. 6-16.

According to the report, the former school, built 50 years ago,houses both Bath Community Television and the Bath RecreationDepartment. The latter will remain open, according to a pressrelease, and is expected to move to the top floor during theabatement process, which began Aug. 12.

The project includes removing and disposing of building materialsthat contain asbestos, as well as replacing abated buildingmaterials and partial abating of lead-based paint found onexterior window casings.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Revolving LoanFund Subgrant, which uses funding the city received from theAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is paying for nearly theentire project, which costs a little more than $180,000, accordingto Justin Poirier, Bath's director of community development.

With the funds available until the end of September, the cityopted to use them for the Donald Small School, which had alreadybeen assessed for contaminants.

"There's no real current risk to anybody in the building," Poiriersaid, noting that the work will come in handy in the future ifanyone wants to renovate or change the configuration of thebuilding.

"We won't have this as an impediment," he said.

Once the project is complete, the building will have new floors,which will include a multi-purpose floor in the gymnasium.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prairie Hill Landfill Fibro Ban May See End------------------------------------------------------------David Giuliani, writing for Sauk Valley, reported that earlierthis summer, Whiteside County officials considered ending the banon asbestos in its landfill. For now, they are holding off afterdiscovering the process was more involved than originally thought.

According to the report, the issue came up when Prophetstown,which is demolishing the part of downtown that a fire destroyedlast month, asked to send asbestos to the county landfill, knownformally as the Prairie Hill Recycling and Disposal Facility.

The Prophetstown City Council approved a contract to clear therubble, the report added.

The landfill's original 1992 permit bans asbestos, which isconsidered a hazardous material.

In July, the County Board's Landfill Committee discussed whetherit should be allowed.

Mike Wiersema, the landfill's manager, told members that mostlandfills accept such materials, but added that one of thestipulations of the siting process was that the local landfillwould not take asbestos, according to the meeting's minutes. Buthe assured the panel that the local landfill could safely acceptasbestos.

The county's health department reported it preferred asbestos bebrought to the landfill and handled properly, the minutes say.

At the board's Executive Committee meeting this month, CountyAdministrator Joel Horn said the county could take steps to liftthe restriction but wouldn't do so in time to help Prophetstown todispose of its demolition debris.

Executive Committee members agreed to have the Landfill Committeeaddress the asbestos issue for future needs.

County Engineer Russ Renner said the process to change the permitwould take awhile.

"There would be a lot to go through," he said. "It wouldn't bedone in just a few days."

Instead, Prophetstown could take its asbestos to the Lee CountyLandfill, which accepts asbestos, Renner said. But it would bemore than twice the distance -- from 12 miles to 32 miles.

Renner said the County Board may discuss the asbestos issue at itsmeeting.

The Whiteside County landfill is expected to fill to capacity in20 years.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Storage Plan for Gorseinon Site------------------------------------------------------Jason Evans, This is South Wales, reported that a new asbestosstorage unit could be on the way to Gorseinon.

According to the report, the proposed development involvesfacilities for the storage of up to 10 tonnes of asbestos waste onGarngoch Industrial Estate.

Swansea Council planners have recommended the scheme be given thegreen light, and councillors are due to vote on the issue, thereport added.

The applicants, Phoenix Asbestos Recovery Ltd, want to operate theGorseinon Road site as a transfer business, taking mainly smallamounts of waste from the likes of domestic boilers, tiles andasbestos roof sheets and storing them until they can be taken awayfor disposal.

As part of the plan, Phoenix want to construct a new single-storybuilding, around 80ft by 40ft, to house the waste inside sealedcontainers.

The firm also wants to build a 27-space car park. Councilplanners are recommending the scheme be given the go-ahead,concluding "the proposal is considered an appropriate form ofdevelopment that will have a limited impact upon amenity,transportation, visual amenity, public safety and has anacceptable relationship with adjoining land uses."

The proposed operation of the unit -- on the former JD (Furs) site-- would involve up six delivery vans a day delivering the wrappedasbestos waste, with a weekly lorry collection to take theaccumulated material to a suitable disposal site.

As part of the planning process Swansea Council has been requiredto conduct what is known as a habitat regulations assessment togauge any possible impact on water quality in the nearby BurryInlet and the wider Carmarthen Bay, and has concluded that thedevelopment will "not be likely to have a significant effect".Neither Welsh Water nor Gorseinon Town Council have raisedobjection to the plans.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Former Shipyard Worker's Lungs--------------------------------------------------------------The North-west Evening Mail reported that a former shipyard workerdied of a combination of natural causes and industrial disease ,an inquest heard.

According to the report, Brian Rigg, 71, passed away at his homeon St Vincent Street, Barrow, on March 31. He suffered from anumber of health problems including a heart attack and a bloodclot prior to his death. Asbestos particles were also found in hislungs, the report related. Assistant deputy coroner Alan Sharpruled that the cause of death was a combination of three naturalcauses -- heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease anddiffuse pulmonary fibrosis -- and industrial disease.

Mr Sharp said: "The cause of Mr Rigg's death was natural causescontributed by an industrial disease. It is clear from the postmortem report that there were asbestos bodies found.

"It is common knowledge workers in the Barrow shipyard wereexposed to asbestos when working there."

Mr Rigg's brother, Michael, told the inquest at Barrow Town Hallthat he worked in the shipyard for over 40 years, retiring in2001.

Pathologist Muammer Al-Mudhaffer said tiny remnants of asbestoswere found in Mr Rigg's lungs. His heart was also found to beenlarged -- a common side-effect of infections to the lung.

"The asbestos exposure weakened the heart," Mr Al-Mudhafferconcluded.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Yorkshire Fibro Exposure Plea----------------------------------------------------The Star reported that diseases potentially caused by the presenceof asbestos in South Yorkshire workplaces are being investigatedby solicitors.

According to the report, witnesses are being sought by Thrings, onbehalf of clients whose relatives later contracted asbestos-related illnesses.

One is the daughter of the former clerk of works at SheffieldRegional Hospital Board and Trent Regional Health Authority fromthe mid 1960s until the early 1980s, the report related.

A claim is being made on behalf of her late mother, who died fromasbestos-related mesothelioma.

Solicitor James Trescothwick-Martin, from Thrings, said: "It isthought exposure to asbestos occurred as a result of the husband'swork.

"As part of his job he had to supervise various differentprojects.

"He would then take the dust home with him where his wife washedhis clothes and inhaled the asbestos fibres which had settled onthem as a result of his work.

"We are looking in particular at Doncaster Royal Infirmary, theSheffield Blood Transfusion Centre, the then new Barnsley DistrictGeneral Hospital and works at the Northern General Hospital in FirVale."

The company is also investigating the construction of Sheffield'sParkway ambulance station, Monk Bretton Health Centre, thebuilding of Thurnscoe Health Centre and the Northern Generalresidential block.

And it is studying a case involving a Sheffield worker who mayhave been exposed to asbestos while employed at a silversmiths inthe city centre in the late 1960s to around 1982-83.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Warragul Kindergarten-----------------------------------------------------------Shannon Twomey, writing for Weekly Times Now, reported that aWarragul kindergarten is temporarily closed after asbestos wasfound on the site.

According to the report, the asbestos was found in three separatelocations at the Warragul Community Kindergarten on Mouritz Stover the weekend when expansion works were taking place.

Specialists removed the asbestos from one of the locations but thesite will remain closed until the asbestos can be removed from theremaining two locations, the report related.

The Baw Baw Shire Council said the two sites were not intact andwere not near the active part of the centre where there werechildren and staff -- so no one was put at risk.

"To mitigate any chance of inadvertent exposure during the ongoingrenovations it was deemed in the best interest of everyone tosuspend kinder activities at the site until this additionalasbestos could be removed," the shire said in a statement.

The council is working with the builder, the site supervisor andan independent asbestos assessor to remove the asbestos as quicklyas possible and it is anticipated children will return to kinder.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fear at Darwen Allotments------------------------------------------------Dan Clough, writing for Lancashire Telegraph, reported that plotsat a town's only 'allotment' site will not be let out because ofasbestos fears, a council has said.

According to the report, Blackburn with Darwen Council bosses haveclosed the Harwood Street Garden Area in Darwen to new tenants,saying it could be contaminated with asbestos.

The land which sits between Harwood Street and Tockholes Road,features a large number of empty and neglected plots, leaving somepotential users frustrated, the report related.

One Prospect Avenue resident said he had been on the waiting listfor seven years and had complained to the council, the reportsaid. He said: "I have wanted one for years to grow fruit andvegetables with my children.

"But the council have said they won't let any more people onthere.

"I have been told there is asbestos in three plots, but 11 areempty. It just doesn't seem fair."

The Lancashire Telegraph has been shown a letter responding to theman's complaints.

As well as confirming there are fears that asbestos could bepresent, it also refers to a 'comprehensive property review',suggesting the council may consider disposing of the site, or partof it.

The letter, signed by Laura Fish, of the property management anddevelopment department at Capita, said: "We unfortunately have hadto closed the Tockholes Road site to new tenants.

"This is both because of the asbestos and the fact that acomprehensive property review of the garden area is scheduled totake place.

"It would not be appropriate to allow anyone on to the plots andincur costs when we do not know the outcome of the review andcouncil members have not made decisions.

"Similarly, the costs to do a full site survey to identify whereasbestos is present is considerably high in a time when thecouncil needs to control expenditure.

"While the asbestos isn't being disturbed, therefore minimisingrisk, the sensible option would be to await the outcome of thereview, when a decision can be made as to the course of action thecouncil wishes to take."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bury Fibro Victim Plead for Help in Pay Battle---------------------------------------------------------------Manchester Evening News reported that a retired mill worker who isdying from an asbestos-related cancer is urging former colleaguesto help his compensation fight.

According to the report, grandfather-of-three David Barnes, 81, issuffering from mesothelioma, a deadly cancer caused by inhalingasbestos dust. He wants former colleagues to provide informationabout the environment in two textile mills where he worked.

Mr Barnes, from Bury , says asbestos was used extensively in theboiler rooms, but he was never given any warnings about itsdangers or provided with a face mask, the report related. Hesaid: "This disease has had a dreadful effect on my life.

"I am virtually housebound and can no longer care for my wifePamela, who herself has a heart condition and finds it difficultto do very much around the house.

"It is so frustrating to know that, had I been told of the dangersof asbestos by my employer and given just a simple mask for use indangerous areas, I would not be suffering now as I am."

Mr Barnes worked in clerical and sales at two mills in Heywood andOldham owned by a company called I&J Hyman Ltd, which is no longeroperating. He fell ill in October last year, when he developed acough and noticed he was often short of breath. He was givenantibiotics for a chest infection but they made no difference andafter a few weeks he was referred to hospital, where he was foundto have a collapsed lung.

Further tests revealed he had mesothelioma that was inoperable,malignant and incurable.

The pensioner is urging former colleagues to contact hissolicitor, Patrick Walsh at Manchester law firm Pannone, to tellthem about conditions at the two mills. He said: "I would be sograteful if any of my old colleagues or people could get incontact." Asbestos-related cancer is most likely to be workrelated.

"Both mills had large boiler rooms where we believe asbestoslagging was used and it seems there was asbestos lagged pipingelsewhere in the mill.

"I would be extremely interested to talk to anyone who worked ateither Hyman mill at any time from the 1950s to the 1980s."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dubai Residents Fear Deadly Dust Exposure----------------------------------------------------------Vesela Todorova and Mohammed Al Khan, writing for The National,reported that families in a government compound in Al Satwa areliving with hazardous asbestos, exposed by demolition work on carpark roofs at homes built for police personnel.

According to the report, while the roofs were built before thenation's ban on the material came into force seven years ago,workers appear not to be following the regulations for itsremoval, putting their own health and that of residents at risk.Residents at the compound said they had not been warned that thedemolition works posed any risks to their health.

One resident, who identified himself only as Abu Faris, said hisfamily had to wash their cars twice daily because of the dust, thereport related.

"If we can see it on the cars that means we are breathing it," thefather of two said, the report further related.

Asbestos cement, a once popular building material, has been bannedin more than 60 countries.

When disturbed, tiny fibres become airborne and can penetrate deepinto people's lungs.

Removing the material should be carried out using techniques thatminimise the chances of fibres becoming airborne. But during avisit to the site on July 26, some of the old roofing was seencrushed and mixed with other building waste.

A second visit, on August 13, found a similar situation. Whilemuch of the rubble had been cleared, pieces of asbestos were stillclearly visible mixed with the general waste.

The waste was being scooped up by an excavator, the operator ofwhich was not wearing a mask. A bed had been set up next to a heapof crushed asbestos.

The site was just metres away from the rest of the compound, wheresome families are still living.

An asbestos removal expert who visited the site said the way thedemolition was being handled risked the health of workers and thepublic.

"It is always preferable to remove asbestos prior to demolition,"said the expert.

"Typically this is carried out by a specialist asbestos removalcontractor, who has trained and competent staff, experience insafe asbestos removal, control measures and appropriate personaland respiratory protective equipment."

There were no barriers preventing members of the public fromentering the demolition site.

"When asbestos materials are damaged or disturbed they releaseasbestos fibres into the air," the expert said.

"Given the proximity of the buildings to the demolition, the factthat asbestos materials are being demolished by an excavator andwithout any dust-suppression control measures, there is a risk ofasbestos exposure to local residents, members of the public andthe workers involved in the demolition."

Exposure to asbestos can cause a reaction with symptoms similar tothose of pneumonia. Exposure over many years can lead to lungscarring, pleural disease and lung cancer.

Ibtissam Othman, whose house is just metres from the debris, saidthe demolition dust had bothered her and her family. But she hadnot heard of asbestos or the risks associated. Neither had herneighbour, Hamed Rashid.

"Two years ago a lot of nearby buildings were demolished," MrRashid said. "No one told us about the risk."

The contractor carrying out the work said the claims would beinvestigated.

Mr ME Ayoob, managing partner of World Wide Building andDemolition, said: "The asbestos sheets are generally transportedto our warehouses in Sharjah for careful disposal. This instanceseems to be an exception.

"We are looking into the matter, and ensuring that our teams takeall the necessary steps to maintain the highest safety standards."

A spokesman for the site's developer, Meraas, said: "Anycontractors who prove not to be adhering to required safetystandards will be considered for black-listing from Meraas futureprojects."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Fibro Dumped in Carlton---------------------------------------------Maria Galinovic, writing for St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader,reported that Jason Farhat of Waterview Street, Carlton, saw a utespeeding off from a factory at the end of the street, havingdumped a large pile of asbestos.

"I called the police and the fire brigade to have it removed," MrFarhat told the news agency.

"The asbestos was dumped near houses and on a route that localkids take to get to Blakehurst High School."

He said police and Hazmat (NSW Fire & Rescue) secured the site butdid not remove the asbestos immediately.

Mr Farhat said dumping was common in that area as it was semi-industrial and poorly lit.

"We often see skid marks down the road as cars dump and take offduring the night," he said.

"I know that surveillance cameras are expensive but if we hadproper lighting it might act as a deterrent.

"The section of Waterview Street between Woids and Planthurst is aconstant dumping ground -- the council has been very inactive toprotect residents."

A Kogarah Council spokeswoman stressed that the incident inWaterview Street was on private property and therefore was not thecouncil's clean-up responsibility.

However, the council was in the process of investigating thisillegal dumping on private property having obtained CCTV footagefrom someone nearby.

"To date, NSW Fire & Rescue has attended the scene and secured thedumped material until it is cleared," she said.

"There were also two further incidents of illegal asbestos dumpingon public land (a footpath and a laneway) in the Carlton area overthe weekend.

"Council is investigating these incidents and the possibility thatthey are linked to the incident in Waterview Street. Council hasremoved the material from both of those sites."

What can be done to stop dumping?

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Hit With $5.95MM Cancer Verdict-------------------------------------------------------------Herald Online reported that the Dow Chemical Company was foundliable on all counts in a civil lawsuit filed in Louisiana statecourt relating to its use of asbestos and allegedly causing cancerin its workers. The case was decided by a Plaquemine, Louisianajury. Dow Chemical's Louisiana division is headquartered inPlaquemine, LA. The Dow Plaquemine Plant is the largest chemicalplant in the petro-chemical industry rich state.

According to the report, the lawsuit alleged that exposures toasbestos at Dow Chemical caused Sidney Mabile's terminal asbestoscancer, mesothelioma. Mabile's attorneys alleged in the suit thatDow has exposed thousands of workers to asbestos, and that Mabileis only one of hundreds of future asbestos cancer victims alsoexposed at Dow.

Court documents revealed that Dow has continued to use tons of rawasbestos in its chemical manufacturing facilities throughout theworld. "Most chemical companies abandoned using asbestos decadesago. But Dow continues to use the notorious carcinogen in plantsthroughout the world because the processing is roughly ten percentless expensive with asbestos than with asbestos-freealternatives," said attorney John Langdoc of Baron and Budd.

Internal Dow documents showed that Dow lobbied to oppose theEnvironmental Protection Agency's proposed ban of asbestos. Courtdocuments suggested that Dow performed a "cost per cancer"analysis and determined that it would cost Dow over $1.2 billionto switch all of its plants to non-asbestos processing methods.Dow was successful in lobbying the Environmental Protection Agencyto allow Dow to continue using raw asbestos in its United Stateschemical plants. Dow has continued to fight the ban of asbestos inother countries. The European Trade Union Confederation explainsthat an "[o]pposition to a blanket asbestos ban now seems to comeonly from Dow Chemicals."

Baron and Budd, a law firm with a long history of representingstates, cities, and individual environmental and occupationalcancer victims, represented Mabile. Mesothelioma attorney JohnLangdoc represented Mabile at trial. Dow was represented at trialby a team of lawyers lead by Baton Rouge attorney David Bienvenuof Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC. "Dow foughtthis case with all of its legal might, and we are relieved thatthe jury was able to see Dow for what it is: a company that choseto make more money over protecting its workers from carcinogens.Mr. Mabile holds hope that this verdict will lead to a change atDow, and that it will stop using asbestos before even more workersare diagnosed with cancers," said Langdoc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sen. Baucus Brings Medicare Official to Libby--------------------------------------------------------------Vince Devlin, writing for The Missoulian, reported that MarilynTavenner has a picture of Lester Skramstad on her desk inWashington, D.C., even though she's never met him -- not in thislife, anyway -- and never will.

Tavenner, barely four months into her tenure as the nation's topadministrator for an $820 billion federal agency, the Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services, stood at Skramstad's grave in theLibby Cemetery on a beautiful August morning with U.S. Sen. MaxBaucus, D-Mont, the report related.

Skramstad is one of an estimated 3,000 victims of asbestos-relatedillnesses stemming from a vermiculite mine once operated in Libbyby W.R. Grace & Co. -- and one of more than 400 who have diedbecause of it, the report said.

"Max wanted her to meet his friend Les," said Gayla Benefield, oneof Libby's many asbestos victims, who organized the cemeteryportion of Tavenner's visit, the report further related.Benefield's father, Perley Vatland, worked in the mine for 19years, was diagnosed in 1971 and died in 1974.

Like Skramstad, who died in 2007, Vertland unknowingly dragged thedeadly dust home from work with him -- as did many of the miners-- and infected his family, the report noted.

Baucus met Skramstad over huckleberry pie and coffee inBenefield's home in 2000, where about 20 local people "describedthe awful legacy of W.R. Grace," according to Baucus' office. Thesenator calls his meeting Skramstad a pivotal moment in hisdecision to champion the cause of Libby victims in the yearssince.

* * *

It was Baucus who gave Tavenner the picture of Skramstad in May,Baucus who grilled Tavenner about Medicare holding up othervictims' settlement payments during her confirmation hearings thatsame month, and Baucus who engineered her first-ever trip toMontana.

"The first time I met Senator Baucus, (Libby) was one of the firstthings we discussed," Tavenner said.

Montana's senior senator, who will not seek a seventh term in2014, has hauled everyone from White House Cabinet secretaries tothe head of the Environmental Protection Agency to Libby so theycould see firsthand what happened to this town.

"The U.S. government is so big that things get lost in theshuffle, things get high-centered," Baucus, chairman of the SenateCommittee on Finance, said later at lunch at the Libby Caf‚. "Youhave to focus on it relentlessly. Libby is a small part of ourstate, a small part of our country, but it's a big, big need.

"You have to keep your eye on the ball, keep bugging people abouthealth care, about getting people screened, about getting thiscleaned up. These people deserve justice."

Libby asbestos victims receive health care coverage under Medicaredue to a provision Baucus wrote in the Affordable Care Act.

One of Baucus' goals with Tavenner's visit is to convince her toexpand additional Medicare benefits to victims who have moved outof the area. The pilot program pays for expenses Medicare normallydenies, but only victims living in Lincoln and Flathead countiescurrently qualify.

Libby asbestos victims who no longer live in either county can'treceive the special home care services, special medical equipment,help with travel to get care, special counseling, nutritionalsupplements and prescription drugs not covered by Medicare drugplans.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the authorityto change that.

* * *

Tavenner indicated the change would come, and within months, notyears.

"Certainly before the end of the year," she said. "I have afeeling the chairman will make sure I do."

After hearing from Benefield and other asbestos victims andsurvivors of victims at the cemetery, Tavenner visited the Centersfor Asbestos Related Disease Clinic in Libby.

"I've heard from the families, now I want to hear the clinicalside," said Tavenner, a nurse by training. "I want to get theirfeedback. Are they getting what they need?"

Baucus was pleased that a backlog in CMS cases that had held upsettlement payments from W.R. Grace for victims has largelyvanished in the four months since Tavenner took over.

Medicare had to collect its qualifying expenses from thesettlements before victims could be paid.

"What's tragic is some folks died before they got their payments,"Baucus said, "but the backlog is almost down to zero."

* * *

In addition to learning about asbestos-related issues, Tavennerused her day in Libby to visit the Lincoln County Community HealthCenter and find out how implementation of the Affordable Care Act-- better known as "Obamacare" -- is working for a rural clinic.

"It's important for folks in Washington to get out from behindtheir desks and see what's working, and what isn't, on the groundin places like rural Montana," said Baucus, a primary architect ofthe legislation.

Montana has 17 community health centers that served 99,000patients last year, almost half of whom did not have healthinsurance. The Libby center served 6,000 patients in 2012according to Baucus' office, or more than 30 percent of LincolnCounty's total population.

But for many people in this county, of course, health carerevolves around asbestos-related disease. Lester Skramstad,Benefield said, spent only two years working in the mine in the1950s.

In the years after Skramstad was diagnosed, his wife and four ofhis five children were, too.

Brent Skramstad is buried behind his father's grave in the LibbyCemetery. He died of asbestos-related disease in 2009, at the ageof 51.

When she helped put up white crosses in the cemetery in 2005 tomark the graves of all the people who died because of thevermiculite, Benefield said 265 were needed.

"Now it'd take more than 400," she said. "My parents' generationhave all died, now we have ones in their 20s coming through andbeing diagnosed. That's my grandchildren's generation -- that'sfour generations."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Changes Proposed to Help Victims Seeking Pay-----------------------------------------------------------------ABC News reported that law changes to make it simpler for homeasbestos victims to seek compensation have been tabled inParliament.

According to the report, the amendments would reform common lawcompensation for asbestos victims and their families not coveredby workers compensation, which would include home renovators.

The President of the Asbestos Free Tasmania Foundation, SimonCocker, says areas of the law which need improvement includecompensation levels and time limitations to apply for damages, thereport added.

Mr Cocker says companies for decades used asbestos material inTasmanian housing when they knew it was a health risk.

"Tasmania has had a number of people die and suffer due toasbestos illness," he said.

"We know that there is going to be more and we think that thesystem should deliver fair and reasonable compensation to thesepeople, and it hasn't."

Mr Cocker says it is important people who are exposed to asbestosin the home are given fair compensation.

"People have been poisoned by asbestos for 40 years in Tasmaniaand it's only fair and reasonable that they should have access tocommon law compensation if they don't have a workers compensationclaim."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Portslade Homeowner Left Holding Fibro Pile------------------------------------------------------------Ben Leo, writing for The Argus, reported that a homeowner has beenleft with bags of lethal asbestos after a refuse and recyclingcentre refused to take all her waste.

According to the report, Natalie Andrews, 44, from Portslade, hadamassed around 100 bags of the dangerous substance afterrenovating the roof of her new home in Mile Oak Road. She claimedthat after following instructions on the Brighton and Hove CityCouncil website, she filled each bag with asbestos-ridden rooftiles and double bagged them ahead of a visit to the tip in Hove.But on arrival at the refuse and recycling site off Old ShorehamRoad, she was told by workers she could only get rid of six bagseach month.

"I think it's ludicrous. We had around 100 bags of tiles todispose of but on visiting the dump we were informed they willonly accept six bags every month.

"We are not a company and even showed proof of this at the tip.

"We only want to dispose of this in the right way. We pay ourcouncil tax and surely have a right to dump things at the tip asand when we need to.

"Is this what the council think is promoting a healthy environmentand discouraging fly tipping?"

Miss Andrews also claimed the refuse staff were unhelpful.

She added: "They didn't even help me carry the bags and lift theminto the bin which was very difficult as I am 44, a size 8 and5ft3ins."

Breathing in air containing asbestos fibres can lead toasbestosis, lung cancer and other diseases. It has been illegalto use asbestos in construction work since the 1970s, but canstill be found in properties built before then.

A spokesman from Brighton and Hove City Council said: "We take thedisposal of hazardous materials very seriously.

"It is essential that builders quote for the removal of all waste-- especially any large quantities of asbestos.

"The rules are designed so that commercial quantities of asbestosare not passed through the domestic waste system, for taxpayers topick up the disposal costs.

"Otherwise builders would be offering cheap deals to householdersif they agree to take building waste to the domestic tip.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 39 Defendants Named in Fayetteville PI Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that aFayetteville man and his mother are suing 39 companies they claimcaused his father's death.

According to the report, Danny Ray Kincaid Sr. was diagnosed withlung cancer in April 2012, from which he died on June 15, 2012,according to a complaint filed July 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court.

Jesse E. Kincaid and Mary C. Kincaid claim Danny Kincaid smoked 2packs per day from 1966 until 1997, but then quit, the reportrelated.

Danny Kincaid was exposed to asbestos during his employment as acrane operator and dust collector technician from 1973 until 2008,according to the suit.

The defendants are being sued based on theories of negligence,contaminated buildings, breach of expressed/implied warranty,strict liability, intentional tort, conspiracy, misrepresentationsand post-sale duty to warn, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim certain defendants are also being sued aspremises owners and as Danny Kincaid's employers for deliberateintent/intentional tort.

The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial to resolve all issuesinvolved. They are being represented by Victoria Antion Nelson,Anne McGinness Kearse and Scott A. McGee of Motley Rice LLC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WECCO Insurance Suit Remanded to State Court-------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff Walter E. Campbell Company -- a Maryland Corporationwith its principal place of business in Maryland -- filed anaction against eight diverse corporations, and Property andCasualty Insurance Guaranty Corporation -- another MarylandCorporation with its principal place of business in Maryland.WECCO originally filed its complaint in Superior Court for theDistrict of Columbia. In the Superior Court, PCIGC moved todismiss all claims against it or, in the alternative, for summaryjudgment, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

With the consent of PCIGC, the other eight defendants then removedthe action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbiaon February 11, 2013, under the theory that WECCO had fraudulentlyjoined PCIGC to the action in order to sever complete diversityand prevent jurisdiction in the federal court system. In theDistrict Court, six of the defendants have moved to dismiss theaction or, in the alternative, for a stay pending the resolutionof a related action in the United States District Court for theDistrict of Maryland. WECCO has now moved to remand the actionback to the Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that for many decades, WECCO handled,installed, disturbed, removed, and sold asbestos-containinginsulation material. The Defendants are insurance companies thateither themselves provided, or guaranteed other now-insolventinsurance companies that had provided, liability insurance toWECCO. The sole cause of action in the complaint before theDistrict Court arises from an insurance dispute between WECCO anddefendants concerning coverage for bodily injury and wrongfuldeath lawsuits that have been filed against WECCO allegingexposure to asbestos during WECCO's work.

Because the District Court finds that the Defendants have not mettheir burden of proving that WECCO fraudulently joined PCIGC as adefendant to defeat diversity jurisdiction in the federal courts,the District Court ruled that it lacks subject matter jurisdictionover this matter and, therefore, remanded the action to theSuperior Court for the District of Columbia.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants UCC's Bid to Junk "Cisler" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgmentdismissing an asbestos-related complaint and all cross-claimsasserted against it on the ground that there is no evidence toshow that plaintiff John Cisler was exposed to asbestosmanufactured, distributed, or supplied by UCC.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Acevedo" Suit Denied-----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,entered a decision and order dated Aug. 8, 2013, denying CraneCo.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the asbestos-relatedpersonal injury complaint and all other claims asserted against iton the ground that the plaintiffs have not shown that plaintiffLuis Acevedo was exposed to asbestos from working on or around anyproducts manufactured by Crane of which plaintiffs complain.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Farell's Bid to Dismiss "Taveniere" Suit Denied----------------------------------------------------------------In an asbestos personal injury action involving a veteran of theU.S. Navy, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, NewYork County, denied defendant Farrell Lines Incorporated's motionfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claimsasserted against it, holding that summary judgment is a drasticremedy which should not be granted where there is doubt as to theexistence of a triable issue of fact. Judge Hietler ordered theparties to the case to prompt coordinate their discovery.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Favoring Zurich Affirmed----------------------------------------------------------More than four years after defendant Zurich American InsuranceCompany denied coverage for an asbestos-related claim, plaintiffWoodcliff Lake Board of Education asked Zurich to re-evaluate theclaim, stating its loss was caused by vandalism. The Boardappeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favorof Zurich.

In a decision dated Aug. 14, 2013, a three-judge panel of theSuperior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed thetrial court's decision, holding that vandalism is not defined inthe policy issued by Zurich to the Board. The Superior Court saidthere is no evidence of any trespasser coming onto the property towreak havoc with the asbestos. The Superior Court agreed with thetrial judge that the available evidence fails to show that thedisturbance was the result of any malicious act, whether by acontractor or anyone else. The lack of that evidentiary supportfor a conclusion that vandalism caused the disturbance is soglaring that it would require the Superior Court to adopt a "far-fetched interpretation of [the] policy exclusion" to conclude thatthis loss was caused by vandalism and therefore covered by thePolicy. Viewing the language, which the Superior Court foundunambiguous, and the surrounding circumstances, the Superior Courtconcluded that the pollution exclusion applied and barred coveragehere.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Not Allowed to Recover Excess Benefits-------------------------------------------------------------Upon the death of her husband from asbestos-related pulmonarydisease, plaintiff Armethia Lively filed suit for workers'compensation benefits. Because her husband had previously settleda disability claim for 400 weeks of benefits, the employer deniedthe claim. The trial court awarded the funeral expenses of thehusband but declined to grant benefits to the plaintiff as hisdependent over and above the amount of the settlement. Her appealhas been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation AppealsPanel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact andconclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51.Although the Plaintiff may make a separate claim for benefits, sheis not entitled to any recovery beyond funeral expenses becausethe amount of her entitlement, as controlled by the date of herhusband's injury, would not be in excess of the amount of hissettlement. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Widow's Appeal in PI Suit v. Slakey-----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff and appellant Rebecca Lee David, individually and assuccessor-in-interest to James Lester David, appeals a judgmentfollowing a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant andrespondent Slakey Brothers, Inc. The Plaintiffs contends thesummary judgment must be reversed due to procedural andevidentiary errors, and in any event, the trial court erred ingranting summary judgment due to the presence of triable issues ofmaterial fact. At the time of the summary judgment hearing,decedent lay dying of mesothelioma.

In a decision dated Aug. 15, 2013, the Court of Appeals ofCalifornia, Second District, Division Three, concluded that thetrial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider thedecedent's opposing declaration on the ground it was unsigned, inthat by the time of the hearing on the motion for summaryjudgment, the Plaintiffs had submitted a signed copy of theopposing declaration. Further, the decedent's opposingdeclaration was sufficient to raise a triable issue of materialfact as to whether decedent had been exposed to asbestos-containing products supplied by Slakey, the Court of Appealsruled. Therefore, the judgment is reversed.

The case is JAMES LESTER DAVID et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,v. SLAKEY BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B244802(Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available athttp://is.gd/xnYw3kfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Denies Meriden's Bid to Junk "Walker" Suit------------------------------------------------------------------Defendant Meriden Molded Plastics, Inc., seeks dismissal of anasbestos personal injury action against it for lack of personaljurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to dulyserve the Defendant with the summons and complaint. Meridenfurther moves to dismiss on the ground that the Plaintiff failedto commence proceedings for the entry of judgment within one yearafter Meriden failed to answer the Plaintiffs' complaint. ThePlaintiffs argue that pursuant to Section VI(E) of the NYCAsbestos Litigation Case Management Order, they properlyeffectuated service upon Meriden on April 9, 2013 via an amendedcomplaint. The Plaintiffs also cross-move to extend the timewithin which to serve the summons and complaint upon Meriden.

In a decision and order dated Aug. 6, 2013, Judge Sherry KleinHeitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Meriden'smotion to dismiss, finding that the circumstances weigh in favorof an extension of time to serve Meriden under both the "goodcause" and "interest of justice" standards. The Plaintiffs'attempts to serve the Defendant, although ultimately defective,were diligent, Judge Heitler ruled.

The Plaintiff alleges that "[i]n order to obtain favorable testingreports," the Air Monitoring Defendants "for many years . . .fraudulently provided countless fake air samples, namely, blankcassettes, to environmental testing service companies, such asEMSL, for testing." These "fake" samples "would definitely passthe tests because there was nothing in them." The Plaintiffalleges to have "learned about the fake samples" submitted by theAir Monitoring Defendants while at EMSL by "personally comingacross the[m] . . . and discussing [them] with EMSL's employeeswho have personal knowledge about the fake samples." As asupervisor, Plaintiff "had access to EMSL's air sample analysisrecords showing that countless air samples provided by [the AirMonitoring Defendants] were fake."

The Defendants have moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (i) thePlaintiff's claims are barred by the FCA's public disclosureprovision and (ii) the Plaintiff has failed to plead his claimswith particularity. EMSL seeks dismissal on the additional basisthat it was not properly served. Warren & Panzer and ATC alsoseek attorneys' fees.

Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York agreed as to each asserted basis fordismissal. Accordingly, the action is dismissed in its entirety.The motions for attorneys' fees are denied.

The case is PING CHEN, on behalf of the United States of America,the State of New York, and the City of New York, Plaintiff-Relator, v. EMSL ANALYTICAL, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 10 CIV.7504 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Abrams' opinionand order, dated Aug. 16, 2013, is available athttp://is.gd/BGDJwkfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parties Allowed to Arbitrate Reinsurance Disputes------------------------------------------------------------------Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire InsuranceCompany have filed a petition pursuant to the Federal ArbitrationAct requesting that the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California appoint an umpire in an arbitrationproceedings. Respondent Clearwater Insurance Company has filed across-petition, to which the Petitioners have replied.

The case arises out of a dispute over Clearwater's adherence toits obligation to reimburse the Petitioners for their lossesarising out of asbestos litigation. That litigation, in whichKaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation sought insurance coveragefrom the Petitioners for thousands of asbestos bodily injuryclaims, concluded with a settlement in 2006, whereby thePetitioners agreed to cover some part of Kaiser's claims.

Petitioners made payments to Kaiser consistent with the settlementagreement and in turn, billed Clearwater for its share of thosepayments pursuant to the three reinsurance contracts. Afterpaying some of these bills, Clearwater ceased paying. Thereafter,on November 5, 2012, the Petitioners made a demand for arbitrationunder the reinsurance contracts.

In an order dated Aug. 19, 2013, District Judge Susan Illstongranted in part and denied in part the petition and denied thecross-petition. According to Judge Illston, in the instant case,compliance with the parties' chosen mechanism for appointing anumpire is not impossible. Instead, it is already underway in thesingle arbitration demanded. While Clearwater disputes the scopeof the Petitioners' initial demand, this is not a case whereClearwater has completely frustrated the Petitioners' efforts,Judge Illston pointed out. Rather, Clearwater has participated inthe contractual appointment process. Much of the delay has beento resolve the legal issues Clearwater has raised in its refusalsto proceed. Because the Court now effectively resolves thoseissues, by confirming that they must be resolved by thearbitration panel, there should be no need for further delay.

Judge Illston directed the parties to arbitrate as agreed. Onceselected, the single arbitration panel can resolve the issues ofwhether the Petitioners' demand for arbitration was an improperconsolidation, which of the three "honorable engagement"provisions should govern, and any other similar issues the partiesraise.

The case is GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY and NEW HAMPSHIREINSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY,Respondent, NO. C 13-2924 SI (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy ofJudge Illston's Decision is available at http://is.gd/jUnlOWfrom Leagle.com.

Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire InsuranceCompany, Petitioners, represented by Robert Brooks Martin, III,Esq. -- rbmartin@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Inmates' Tort Claim Act Suits Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of Illinois issued two separate orders datedAug. 13, 2013, dismissing two inmates' actions for deprivations ofconstitutional rights. Judge G. Patrick Murphy from the samecourt also issued an order dated Aug. 13, 2013, dismissing aninmate's action for deprivation of constitutional rights. Thethree actions allege that the inmates, while incarcerated at theVienna Correctional Center, is being exposed to asbestos-coveredpipes and mold.

Vienna Correctional Center is the only named defendant in thethree actions. The Vienna Correctional Center, which is adivision of the Illinois Department of Corrections, is not a"person" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act, and is notsubject to a Section 1983 suit. Therefore, Defendant ViennaCorrectional Center must be dismissed from the actions, withprejudice.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.